Re: [kmip] Naming and format suggestions for Base Objects and ManagedObjects

[Rene Pawlitzek <rpa@zurich.ibm.com>]

Rod,

here is my proposal for reformatting
the tables. I believe that with only a few minor changes we can increase
readability. The idea is to format the tables into a PASCAL-like layout.

Rene




--

Rene Pawlitzek
IBM Zurich Research Lab.
Department of Computer Science
Saeumerstr. 4
CH-8803 Rueschlikon
Switzerland
tel.: +41-44-724-8683
mail: rpa@zurich.ibm.com
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rpa/

http://hamlets.sourceforge.net

From:	"Rod Wideman" <Rod.Wideman@quantum.com>
To:	<kmip@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	06/10/2009 06:10 AM
Subject:	[kmip] Naming and format suggestions for Base Objects and Managed Objects

---

Hi,
 
I have a few observations and suggestions
to share regarding sections 2.1 (Base Objects) and 2.2 (Managed Objects).
 
 
Base Objects appear to be consistently structures,
and the term "base objects" seems to be an idea to differentiate
them from managed objects. Some of these base objects have additional structures
within them. The tables used throughout 2.1 are all consistent in layout
though, using the same layout for things called objects and things called
structures. The first column header is labeled "Object", but
most of the rows appear to be fields within the object (or structure),
and the last column header is labeled either "Required" or "Required
Field" (the latter label also implying that the rows are fields).

 
Each table includes a row that is the name
of the object or structure itself, for which the table defines.  Since
this row is included along with the rows (fields) that compose the object
or structure, it may lead to some confusion, but at least seems distracting
(to me anyway).
 
So my suggestions are as follows:
 
 - Structure the tables slightly differently
by using a title for each table and reference the table by title in the
text
 
 - Call "base objects" something
else, like just "structures".  Then whether or not they
contain sub-structures, all the tables and text in 2.1 can be consistent
and Managed Objects in 2.2 can more cleanly refer to structures.
 
I'm attaching a PDF that attempts to show
a few examples of what I'm describing.
 
Thanks,
Rod Wideman
Quantum Corporation
 
(please disregard the confidentiality statement
below)

---

The information contained in this transmission may be
confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential
information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted
in writing by Quantum Corporation. Furthermore, Quantum Corporation is
not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance
of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.[attachment "ObjectTableFormatChanges.pdf"
deleted by Rene Pawlitzek/Zurich/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Proposal for Table Layout v2.doc