Re: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements

[Fred Carter <fred.carter@amberpoint.com>]

Thus quoth Sedukhin, Igor S (~ 07-Aug-03 11:16 AM ~)...
> We have a problem in agreeing to the requirements that state "managed 
> object MUST expose <whatever>". It prescribes certain way of doing 
> management. These requirements are on the "The software component 
> representing or part of the manageable resource responsible for 
> interacting with the manager is referred to as the/ managed object/ in 
> this document. Traditionally, such software is also known as/ agent/."
> 
> We do not want to be limited by defining requirements on management 
> using agents as suggested.
I don't think that was the intent of the statement.  I think that the 
"Traditionally ... /agent/" part was added by way of explanation.

Nonetheless, I'd agree that it /could/ be interpreted that way, and, as 
such, could be confusing.
> 
> We propose to use more generic phrasing around ALL of such requirements. 
> For example, We propose to phrase it as follows "<whatever> MUST be 
> provided for a manageable resource". This phrase says WHAT instead of 
> implying HOW.
I think this phraseology is fine.  Indeed, it remains completely 
agnostic of implementation which is good.
> 
> PS. By "we" here I mean CA. And this is a violent objection :).
> 
> --* **Igor Sedukhin* .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> --* (631) 342-4325* .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 


-- 
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301