[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: [icom-comment] comments from Jacques Durand
|
From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] comments from Jacques Durand
(as a review assignment from the OASIS TAB) on: Integrated
Collaboration Object Model (ICOM) for Interoperable Collaboration Services
Version 1.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall well structured
specification, but rather "dry" in terms of explanation text and
definitions. [Comment 1] : The Abstract
(unlike the rest of the specification) is a bit too verbose (not the right
place to use examples: would see these in Introduction
instead) [Comment 2] : Section 2:
Modeling language: It would be good to refer to existing other modeling
languages, (CIM, MOF, fUML/UML...) and
a bit of argumentation why ICOM needs its own. [Comment 3] : Section 2: A
glossary of modeling terms would be useful, or at least a short definition at the beginning of each
section (e.g. Section 2.3 could informally start by defining
"Property") [Comment 4] : Section 3:
Again before diving into the "branches" of the Core Model, an overall general overview diagram
would be helpful, along with a short narrative explaining the raational for
these branches. [Comment 5] : Section 4: At
beginning, a Short overview of all the extension modules, and short narrative
for each would be helpful. [Comment 6] : Section 5
Conformance: These Roles should be briefly defined, intuitively in terms of
user perspective or context of utilization. In particular, (I assume) we
are talking of Roles here that have nothing to do with 3.5.4 section. (should
be made clearer) [Comment 7] : Section 5
Conformance: The first 2 points in the numbered list (1,2) look like a
cut-and-paste gone wrong: should really "Service provider
role" be repeated twice here? 1. Service provider role: An
ICOM service provider shall conform to all mandatory and optional ... Section 3 2. Service provider role: An
ICOM service provider shall conform to all mandatory and optional ... Section 4 I would advise to more
clearly separate the requirements for each type of role, into separate
Conformance Clauses. [Comment 8] : Section 5
Conformance: "Models" should be "Modules" in the sentence: "shall conform to all
mandatory and optional statements for one or more extension models as defined
in Section 4 " [Comment 9] : Section 5
Conformance: The rationale of "one or more extension modules" (at the
user's choice) in point #2 of conformance clause is hard to
understand. Sounds like a quantitative
requirements to fulfill about a number of discrete functional capabilities that
have nothing to do with each other (how will that help me
assess the level of ICOM compatibility of an implementation, or its functional
scope if the implementation implements a different module compared to mine or
to another?) In that case why not
define 2 levels of conformance: Core conformance level, then Extended
conformance level (which involves 1 or more ext Modules). Regards, Jacques D. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]