RE: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work time!

["Peter F Brown" <peter@justbrown.net>]

That's great thanks!

 

Peter

---

From: prasanta behera [mailto:pkb.prasanta@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 November 2005 02:10
To: peter@justbrown.net; mattm@adobe.com
Cc: Brown, Al; soa-rm-editors
Subject: Re: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work time!

I can's post it to the editors. Here are my proff-read type 
comments. (I have NOT listed my issues)

1. line 98 – "remain relevant" -  it is not a definitive statement -  we have to say it is or will be  …
2. Line 112 – "rapid understanding"  --- don't feel good about the word "rapid – we think it will help but "rapid" – don't know.
3. Line 127 – Section 4 headline is "Conformance … " and  not "compliance with this reference…"
4. Line 129 – We said that Glossary will be normative but line 129 says otherwise.
5. Line 158  "such aspects as functions" – it should be "functional"
6. Line 163 – "selecting" may be a better word than "sorting"
7. Line 176 – "Couched?" – what's that
8. Line 177-181  is a hard read :--(
9. Line 192-193 – Not clear what is the rational behind it
10. Line 203 – "Any requirement" – may mean that one or more requirements may be enough. How about removing the "any" word.
11. Line 217-218 – unclear
12. Line 235 – "unifier for" ΰ "unifier of"
13. Line 255 "access so that the existing…"
14. Line 259 -261 – I would prefer "This information allows prospective consumers  …" The searchable idea makes it unclear.
15. Line 285 – In Line 256 service was defined as a "means for access". Here it is different. It would better to be consistent.
16. Line 303 – Does the state always change? I do not agree. This could be an issue and may be deferred.
17. Line 329 – Function is not clearly stated - Are those capabilities or (maps to operations).
18. Line 357 – The service description does not have to tell that the service is reachable or not but it should provide a mechanism to determine that. The service description could be outside the service.
19. Line 366 – not clear what's the idea.
20. Line 381 – No such section (2.2.2)
21. Line 392 Item 5 (add in section 3.2.2)

I am sure I missed few … hopefully this helps.

Thanks,
/Prasanta

On 11/2/05, Peter F Brown <peter@justbrown.net> wrote:

OK, let's roll

 

Peter

---

From: Brown, Al [mailto:abrown@filenet.com]
Sent: 02 November 2005 18:42
To: prasanta behera; peter@justbrown.net
Cc: soa-rm-editors
Subject: RE: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work time!

That is fine with me.  I can have a draft back with comments by Friday. -Al

 

---

From: prasanta behera [mailto:pkb.prasanta@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:40 AM
To: peter@justbrown.net
Cc: Brown, Al; soa-rm-editors
Subject: Re: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work time!

 

Peter,

I can do it. I can do section 1.0 - 3.2. If Al can look at 3.3->5 and you the rest, we will be in a good shape.

Thanks,
/Prasanta

On 11/2/05, Peter F Brown < peter@justbrown.net> wrote:

Prasanta, Al:
Following today's TC conf call, the time has come for us to do a proof-reading of the new v10ED version before release to the list and the whole TC (copy attached).

We are looking for:
- grammatical, typo and formatting errors;
- inconsistencies in wording at different points in the text;
- ambiguity about intended meaning;

Could you indicate:
- whether you can contribute in a short time frame;
- which section(s) you would prefer to tackle *in detail* (we will all three of us need to look through the whole text to assess consistency).

I will in any case look at the Glossary and consistency with rest of text as part of my responsibility for that section.

I would hope that we could turn this around by the end of the weekend so that Matt can post to list next Monday.

Peter