sdd message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.10.2
- From: "Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>
- To: "Julia McCarthy" <julia@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:03:12 -0600
My suggestion is the one
from my original reply:
2.10.2
The SDD specification
must support definition of requirements for deploying and configuring solution
resources even across distributed and administratively separate
locations.
I just used the shortened
"distributed locations" to illustrate my motivation for that
suggestion...
So, putting this all together, your suggested wording for 2.10.2
is:
2.10.2 - The SDD
specification must support definition of requirements for deploying solution resources to distributed
locations and configuring resources in distributed locations.
I like this phrasing, but I'm not sure that "distributed
locations" is a sufficient replacement for "distributed and administratively separate
locations" from the original requirement. Thoughts anyone?
Julia
McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line
349/8156
877-261-0391
"Robert Dickau"
<rdickau@macrovision.com>
"Robert Dickau"
<rdickau@macrovision.com>
03/03/2006 11:50 AM |
|
My tinkering isn't intended to change
the meaning of the rewrite. For the first suggestion, I just find the phrasing
"must support defining requirements" a little less easy to read than "must
support definition of requirements".
(Unendearing writerly nitpicking
follows.)
As for the second suggestion, John's phrasing---
"requirements
for deploying solution resources to and configuring resources in distributed
[...] locations"
---seems to be shorthand
for---
"requirements for deploying solution resources to distributed
locations and configuring resources in distributed locations."
My comment is
just that "to and" came as a surprise when parsing the sentence. My first
impulse is to put commas or em dashes or parentheses around "and configuring
resources in", and the suggestion I sent tries to sidestep the extra
punctuation.
From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, 03 March 2006 10:26
am
To: Robert
Dickau
Cc: Patton,
John H; sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd]
2.10.2
Robert, could you be more explicit about your
suggestion?
Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing
Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line
349/8156
877-261-0391
"Robert Dickau"
<rdickau@macrovision.com>
"Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>
03/03/2006 10:50 AM |
|
Agreed that this suggestion
is an improvement over mushy "must support the ability for the author to define
specify [sic] a means to...".
Further tinkering
("defining"-->"definition of", trying to avoid tricky-to-parse
"deploying...to and configuring...in"):
2.10.2
The SDD
specification must support definition of requirements for deploying and
configuring solution resources even across distributed and administratively
separate locations.
From: Patton,
John H [mailto:John.Patton@ca.com]
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2006 8:03 pm
To:
sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] 2.10.2
Original
2.10.2
The SDD
specification must support the ability for the author to define specify a means
to acquire external requirements even if they reside in distributed and
administratively separated locations.
My suggestion
2.10.2
The SDD specification must
support defining requirements for deploying solution resources to and
configuring resources in distributed and administratively separate
locations.
I think
this satisfies UC 151 a bit more.
cheers,
/john patton/
--
ca
Senior Software Engineer
Office:
630 505-6150
Cell:
847-224-9196
john.patton@ca.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]