Yes, I did give a suggestion a while back and it became the content for
this section for wd28, which was simply a table with the namespaces,
which is the actionable information needed here.
Substantial amounts of text have been added (lines 154 - 167) which I
believe get in the way of getting the basic content needed to act on
the information that is in the table in that the additional content
presents 3 new urls, is sometimes repetitive, and conflicting.
The one sentence I find useful of those 14 lines is line 160-161. That
one sentence addressed persistence and points the user to the rddl
page, which, it turns out, also duplicates most of the information in
this section.
Therefore the rddl page may be the better place for the ideas presented
in lines 154 - 167, other than that one sentence.
-A
OASIS Issues Tracker wrote, On 6/21/2011 2:22 PM:
1423296159.7231308691360303.JavaMail.tomcat55@mw00"
type="cite">
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=26067#action_26067 ]
Toby Considine commented on EMIX-476:
-------------------------------------
Line 152 Content of section 1.5 'Namespace' is repetitive and confused/confusing. Also typos.
Would welcome suggestions
wd32: misc editorial (primarily section 1)
------------------------------------------
Key: EMIX-476
URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-476
Project: OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (eMIX) TC
Issue Type: Bug
Environment: Anne Hendry
Reporter: Anne Hendry
Assignee: William Cox
Priority: Minor
Fix For: wd33
General:
Love the compacting of duplicate information!
Love the diagram in section 6-4 (Figure 6-1)!
Is there a way to stop tables from breaking across page boundaries?
This makes it very hard to read and looks unfinished.
Specific:
Line 27 IEC TC57 name (Power systems management ...) Doesn't seem like the correct/full name.
Line 28 Business and market information was borrowed from the financial instruments
Common Information Models as described in International Standards Organization
(ISO) [ISO20022]
What exactly are we 'borrowing' from iso 20022?
I don't see anything that appears to be from that model and
it seems a bit strange to be using two separate 'common information models'
Line 36 An overview of [WS-Calendar] semantics is provided in Appendix E.
Now Appendix C
Line 42 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
Should this instead be in non-normative references? 'Normative' indicates it
has been included in its entirety into this spec but this was not here until
recently. Where does EMIX incorporate IEEE 1547?
Lines 101 - 125 All these NAESB links take you to a login page, which won't do anyone
any good. Might as well not have the hot links.
Line 127 NIEM in non-normative references. Thought we had agreed to remove mention of NIEM.
Line 130 Add hot link to OpenADR spec
http://openadr.lbl.gov/pdf/cec-500-2009-063.pdf
Line 137 Should this be NAESB PAP03, and how does it relate to line 101?
Lines 145-146 Change 'PAP 03' to 'NIST PAP03'. Replace 'Details can be found at' with
"NIST Priority Action Plan 03, Common Price Communication Model"
http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03PriceProduct
or http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/priority-actions.cfm
Remove 'link retrieved 6/23/2010'.
General Non-normative reference comment: There is NAESB PAP03, NAESB 03, and PAP03 referenced.
Seems somewhat redundant. Can these be merged somehow?
Line 152 Content of section 1.5 'Namespace' is repetitive and confused/confusing. Also typos.
Line 453 Table 3-4 (WS-Calendar defined terms)
duplicates many of the same elements (but with different definitions) as in
Appendix C Table C-1 (WS-Calendar Foundational Semantics)
One or the other should be removed (or at least duplicate entries removed).
Line 178 (Editorial Conventions)
Strike first sentence.
It raises more questions than answers and not the right place to raise schema rules.
Line 184 Strike sentence
"Each business process will have its own security needs,
including different consequences for failure of security."
It just clutters up the concept which is better communicated with sentences before and after.
Figure 2-1. Concept is not getting across. What does the line represent?
Could it be horizontal? Doesn't seem to necessarily represent the information in
the text above. Would suggest removing for now because, while it is a wonderfully
clean and clear diagram it takes up a lot of room and doesn't yet add to the
understanding of the concepts presented.
|