OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Update on punch list


Here’s what I’ve done so far (numbering as per your list):

1.       I’ve checked for use of formal terms.

a.       I’ve made some changes (such as changing ‘needs to’ to ‘must’, to avoid confusion with formal term ‘Needs’) and have not tracked them in the text but noted them in the separate ‘untracked changes’ note;

b.      There are a couple of instances where we use a complex, qualified term (such as “remedial action”; “governance authority”, or “public authority”) but I do not think they would be confused with the ‘root’ term (‘action’ or ‘authority’ in these examples)

2.       A couple of new references added; one deleted from reference list; one deleted from body of text (no accompanying or identifiable source)

3.       Done

4.       Changed my PoV on this – the highlight in these instances can indeed disappear (they only appear when the comments are hidden – I see this now…)

5.       Ditto

6.       Will keep an eye on this at pdf generation

7.       Done

8.       Done

9.       I’ve pinged Zoran again with the revised text – will copy this also to list

10.   I’ve integrated Kevin’s text on security as of the version he sent on Saturday

11.   I will now make a fist of a revised compromise text for section 6 – more on this tomorrow

12.   I’ve slightly modified the cover page abstract and added a phrase to section 1.1.2


I picked up a couple of other points:

·         MUST appears capitalized at lines 1594, 1600, 1605, 1643, 1692 (all in section 4.12 ‘Use of Service Description’) – should these be de-capitalized?




From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 01 August, 2012 15:19
To: Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RAF punch list - as of 20120801 PM


The punch list consists of 12 items: the 9 I identified below, one each for finishing security and conformance, and the following that was mentioned at a recent call but missed in the minutes:


12. Add something to the introduction that draws attention to the RAF having engaged  and strived for consistency with the activities noted in Appendix D.  I remember having more eloquent words before but I don’t remember them now.  This may be on the recording for two weeks ago.  I may give it a shot.




From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:53 AM
To: Ken Laskey; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RAF punch list - Ken's


Comments inline


From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July, 2012 18:39
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RAF punch list - Ken's


Following are the items I found.


1.       Section 1.5 says “first mention ... use a bold font”. At end it says, “Where a more colloquial or informal meaning is intended, these words are used without special emphasis.”  After first use, how do we know when we mean the term in its formal sense? [Peter:]  I think this is now moot, as we avoid mixing informal and formal uses of terms – but worth a check[Peter:]  Done,

2.       Are all references included in section 1.6? Are any references in section 1.6 no longer used?

3.       Figure 4: missing relationship between Delegate and Actor.[Peter:]  OK

4.       Line 973: remove highlight[Peter:]  Disagree: the highlight is using in indicating what section of text has been changed, in absence of formal “tracked change”. There are multiple instances of this issue and they will all be removed (along with all tracked changes) from the clean, authoritative, version as required by TC Admin

5.       Line 1858: remove highlight[Peter:]  idem

6.       Figure 33 label mixed in with following text.[Peter:]  Appears in the pdf CLEAN copy I see, but not the tracked version: this can happen if the word document is opened with tracked changes on and user accepts to “update all fields” when document is opened.[Peter:]  Ill keep an eye on this for final submission

7.       Add Kevin Smith to Acknowledgements[Peter:]  OK

8.       Was there decision to drop CFA completely or just move it to Appendix where it is?[Peter:]  Yes, we agreed to drop completely

9.       Revise RM-ODP text. Give Zoran heads up for rationale.[Peter:]  Agreed


Anything else?[Peter:]  Kevin’s updated security text; Agree whether we need a new conformance text along lines of Rex’s suggested template or whether the edits I did in [Peter:] section 6, page 116, are sufficient at this stage (we don’t need conformance for a specification, only for a Candidate Standard)




Dr. Kenneth Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]