RE: [plcs-tog] Issue Resolution Request # 1

["Mason, Howard \(UK\)" <Howard.Mason@baesystems.com>]

My initial thought is that the addition of some or all of the related
entities may assist in understanding a template.

Provided it is left open as to whether none, some or all of the related
entites are shown, and that they are clearly identified as being out of
scope, then there should not be significant impact on the work completed
to date.   No entities to be removed, and none need to be added -
although they may be included where necessary.


Howard Mason
Corporate IT Office
Tel: +44 1252 383129
Mob: +44 780 171 3340
Eml: howard.mason@baesystems.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: tai@sfk.mil.no [mailto:tai@sfk.mil.no] 
Sent: 12 June 2007 16:16
To: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: tai@sfk.mil.no
Subject: [plcs-tog] Issue Resolution Request # 1

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

Issue Resolution Request no.:	1
Issue type:	Check list issue

Attached is the documentation on Issue Resolution Request # 1.
There are two positions in this case:
1.	Keep the templates as small as possible by only showing what is
in scope and hence will be instantiated by the template.
2.	Show the template with entities within scope as well as entities
related to its scope. Hence show more than what will be instantiated by
the template.

Effect of the decision on work already performed will in both cases be
that templates will have to be adjusted. Either by removing or adding
stuff from each template. In the case of adding this clearly must be
corrected straight away. In the case of removing the urgency is not as
great  provided each template is provided with a note to disregard the
greyed areas.

When deciding we should keep in mind what will serve the intended user
of the templates best as well as avoiding overlapping documentation with
possible inconsistency as a result. Possible inconsistency will be a
bigger problem in the case of manual generation of documentation.

 
The TOG Chair recommends the following approach:


Each member of the TOG is invited to forward his/her point of view to
the TOG via the mail exploder.
After 5 working days, the TOG holds a Telecon on the issue.



Best regards 

Tor Arne Irgens
TOG Chair 

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************