RE: [tamie] 'monitoringScript' ? - why not just 'script' ?

["Moberg Dale" <dmoberg@axway.com>]

+1 for neutrality of script labeling.
 
           However, I do think that we need to include an overview on
how some of the temporal aspects need to be thought about differently in
testing (retrospective execution context) from monitoring ( ongoing
interaction execution context) 

And I think I did begin to indicate that a multithreaded monitoring
context needs some special discussion as a guide for implementations,
assuming that we still are pursuing both a xslt implementation as well
as something less constrained.            

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques R. Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:46 AM
To: stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com;
tamie@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tamie] 'monitoringScript' ? - why not just 'script' ?

Stephen:

Good points... The mark-up should probably remain 100% neutral w/r to
monitoring vs. testing, etc.
Maybe the name of the lge (instead of eTSM / eTSL) could be the only
place where we hint at monitoring or testing.
See the minutes of the F2F, item #5: the current state of mind was to
focus on [business or B2B] "process" .

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen Green
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 5:04 AM
To: tamie@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tamie] 'monitoringScript' ? - why not just 'script' ?

OK, I think I understand the feeling we want to balance generic use of
'etsm' as a script language with the use for monitoring and testing, but
I find it a little weak that we call the outermost element
'monitoringScript' when all it is doing so far is acting as a wrapper.
When people wish to use the script language for other than monitoring
(even for testing as distinct from monitoring) then is there any benefit
to be gained for them from the trouble of defining an alternative top
level element? If there is no benefit to be gained then they would be
inclined to use 'etsm' as is. Then the element we provide out of the box
has a name which is a misnomer. So why not give in and call it just
'etsm:script'? If we are to change it then maybe now is best time while
there is less to change in the XSLT, etc.

Best

Steve

Stephen D. Green
Document Engineering Services Ltd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php