Re: [sdd] 2.10.2

[Jay Nash <jay@o-ms.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I like your edit Robert.

Robert Dickau wrote:
> 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...
>  
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 03 March 2006 11:03 am
> *To:* Robert Dickau
> *Cc:* Patton, John H; sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* RE: [sdd] 2.10.2
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Inactive hide details for "Robert Dickau"
> <rdickau@macrovision.com>"Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>
> 
> 
>                         *"Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>*
> 
>                         03/03/2006 11:50 AM
> 
> 	
> 
> To
> 	
> Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> 
> cc
> 	
> "Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Subject
> 	
> RE: [sdd] 2.10.2
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Inactive hide details for "Robert Dickau"
> <rdickau@macrovision.com>"Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>
> 
>                                                 *"Robert Dickau"
>                                                 <rdickau@macrovision.com>*
> 
>                                                 03/03/2006 10:50 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	
> "Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	
> RE: [sdd] 2.10.2
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> *--**
> c**a*
> Senior Software Engineer
> Office: 630 505-6150
> Cell: 847-224-9196_
> __john.patton@ca.com_ <mailto:john.patton@ca.com>
> 

- --
- --
Jay Nash, CTO
OMS SafeHarbor
128 Warren St
Lowell MA 01852
978.937.2363 ext.111
978.937.3784 fax

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFECHdmHsIa/RmVc78RAnldAJ9b3TiEOouFK3g+dCrRypH04Ph2jACfSj28
aBuG2SVEmv1SDwAYQx2x82k=
=8RBQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----