David --
On the surface, yes, but I think no.
#8 was the "further detail" on #4. It's a lower priority because (a)
it's a lot of work and (b) a skilled practitioner would be able to
do the limited part they need quickly themselves.
So I'd reduce #8's priority even further; why write a book for
people who could write the same book? The relationships and
similarities should be exposed in #4.
And as we saw in the block & tier Note, trying to map into
something that is not clearly expressed or that one doesn't
understand is a fruitless task--by moving to the definitions of what
needs to be accomplished, the Note, I think, is very successful. But
a pure mapping to a moving (as in SEP2) or not clearly communicated
target is more of a career than a paper.
I personally thing that with respect to the IRC the self-contained
#1 is more useful. The largely self-contained nature of true
requirements makes that more straightforward, and much more clear on
the "what you asked for" aspect.
Thanks!
bill
--
On 10/21/11 9:44 AM, Holmberg, David wrote:
Yes.
#8 also looks like it might be important for addressing IRC
concerns, but I’m not clear what it is supposed to be. Can
you clarify?
Thanks,
David
Following up on the TC meeting today, I've
uploaded a simplified version of the Notes management document
(the first tab of http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/44012/Emix_Notes_20111020.xlsx
). The first tab is the outstanding work items; history and
those in Public Review are in later tabs.
Changes in the priorities and content (and additions or
deletions from the list) are welcome.
In our continuing efforts to address IRC high level issues, it
seems to me that the most useful are Item numbers (the "#"
column)
13: Ancillary Services
4: Relationship of EMIX to other Standards (esp. "what a CIM
person needs to know")
1: EMIX and PAP03 Requirements (much is in the appendix;
determine what else)
11: Forward price information
In the ordering indicated, red are top priority, and
pink/magenta are next.
What do you think would be most effective?
Thanks!
bill cox
|