coel message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [coel] RE: New COEL document review
- From: Paul.Bruton@tessella.com
- To: Joss Langford <joss@activinsights.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:54:08 +0000
I had a read through Joss's changes and
accepted them, but made a few other changes myself which are still tracked.
I notice we use the team "Behavioural Atom" rather than "COEL
Behavioural Atom". We should probably standardise on the latter, with
"Atom" as a short-form version for readability in some places.
I looked into options for specifying
the JSON Atom content and have put some examples of the use of a JSON Schema
in the latest revision, just to show how it would be useful as a frist-order
specification of the structure, spelling and type of each element, but
when it gets to the interdependence between elements (e.g. SubClass is
required if Element is present) then it gets messy. I suggest we include
a schema that only constrains the structure, spelling and element type
(string vs number) and put the remaining constraints in text.
Paul Bruton, BSc, PhD
Consultant
Email: paul.bruton@tessella.com
Mobile: +44 (0)7557 916535
Skype: paulbruton.skype
Chadwick House, Suite 410, Birchwood
Park, Warrington, WA3 6AE, UK
Tessella is part of the Altran Group
- www.tessella.com
Please consider the environment
and do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This message is commercial in confidence
and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. Access to
this message by anyone else is unauthorised and strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please inform the sender immediately.
Please note that messages sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system
may be monitored and stored in an information retrieval system. Tessella
is Registered in England No. 1466429
From:
Joss Langford <joss@activinsights.com>
To:
"coel@lists.oasis-open.org"
<coel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
15/03/2017 11:41
Subject:
[coel] RE: New
COEL document review
Sent by:
<coel@lists.oasis-open.org>
I made some progress on this list today:
- Point 1 complete – just a few tidy ups on the structure.
- Point 2 complete – I have left ‘ecosystem’ in the privacy
by design section and used ‘architecture’ elsewhere.
- Point 4 in progress – I have re-organised the glossary
and added a few terms. I have not yet started re-drafting or checking the
correct usage of defined terms in the rest of the document.
- Point 8 complete – I have removed the unrequired sections.
- Point 10 complete – I have standardised the use of ‘Classification
of Everyday Living’, ‘OASIS COEL-TC’, ‘COEL Architecture’, ‘COEL
Model’ and ‘COEL Specification’. There are a few instances of just ‘COEL’
in titles that I have left and the only other uses are attached to sections
subject to compliance.
This has resulted in a quite a bit of red ink and there
may be some ‘funnies’ that I crept in where I have has to change a particular
term. It might be worth someone having a check through to accept the non-contentious
changes so the document becomes readable again!
Regards
Joss
Important Information: The contents of this email
are intended for the named addresses only and contain information which
is confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are
the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may
not copy, use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received
it in error, please notify us immediately at info@geneactiv.co.uk
and then destroy it. Further, whilst we make efforts to keep our
network free from computer viruses, etc., you do need to check this email
and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility
for any viruses which might be transferred by way of this email.
Activinsights Limited, 6 Nene Road, Bicton Industrial
Park, Kimbolton, Cambs, PE28 0LF, UK. A company registered in England
& Wales. Registered number: 6576069
From: Joss Langford
Sent: 10 March 2017 11:35
To: coel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: New COEL document review
I have worked my way through the whole document structure
with comments off – so there is some overlap with Paul’s existing input.
- I spent quite a bit of time just on the index
which shows that we have some inconsistencies in the level of header we
are using in different sections. I don’t think there is anything contentious
in the simple changes I would suggest but they will make a lot of red ink
without changing any text!
- The concept of ‘ecosystem’ doesn’t exist outside
of the Privacy-by-Design section so I suggest we refer to the ‘architecture’
throughout the main document. This will require a change to the name of
section 2 – I suggest ‘The COEL Architecture’. We also need to remove
the sub-sections on actors and principles from section 2. I suggest we
add a sub-section ‘Ecosystem’ to 11.
- There is some work to do on : Abstract, Introduction,
Objective, Summary of Concepts & Implementations. I think it might
help us with the non-normative sections of the rest of the document to
do this earlier rather than later. Again the TOSCA document is reasonable
starting point.
- Glossary: needs standardisation & alphabetical
order (as it is so long). TOSCA uses this lead-in statement “The following
terms are used throughout this specification and have the following definitions
when used in context of this document.”
- Classification of Everyday Living section: I think
we need to be clearer about the normative & non-normative content (and
specifically what is referenced in the compliance section). The methodology
section should be earlier in the overall doc and needs updating. The data
flows diagram is now a duplicate and can go. I am still getting a little
lost on the split between a correctly structured taxonomy and the specific
instance with our content in it. Lastly, I think that the we can only describe
the version number (e.g. 1.2) for the COEL Model in this section – the
other element has to be done in the BAP (?).
- Behavioural Atom section: this needs a non-normative
introduction (event-based coding) to match the COEL model introduction
as these are the 2 key concepts on the standard.
- Privacy-by-Design section: the normative language
needs to be lower case and the requirement need to be stripped back to
be only the additional & essential.
- I expect we can drop section 13 & appendix
B.
- We’ll need to decide how best to format diagrams.
In principle, in is nice to have the editable in Word – but it is not
really up to the task. I suggest we bring them in as png when we have them
finalised.
- Last, but not least, we need to agree how we use
the various COEL terms! I suspect that we need to list all the concepts
and then assign the most logical names to them. Personally, I think that
should only use the term “COEL Abcd” for an element of the standard that
we can define in the glossary. I might avoid ever using “COEL” on its
own – referring to the “COEL Specification” when we want to talk about
the document as a whole.
I hope this helps!
Regards
Joss
Joss Langford
Activinsights | Technical Director
+44 (0)1392 247131 | +44 (0) 7712 886208
www.activinsights.com
| www.geneactiv.org
Important Information: The contents of this email
are intended for the named addresses only and contain information which
is confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are
the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may
not copy, use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received
it in error, please notify us immediately at info@geneactiv.co.uk
and then destroy it. Further, whilst we make efforts to keep our
network free from computer viruses, etc., you do need to check this email
and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility
for any viruses which might be transferred by way of this email.
Activinsights Limited, 6 Nene Road, Bicton Industrial
Park, Kimbolton, Cambs, PE28 0LF, UK. A company registered in England
& Wales. Registered number: 6576069
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]