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

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

I agree we may find there is more needed in the executionContext
but it seems this need not require there to be anything other than
the most general outermost element such as 'script' rather than a
specialization like 'monitoringScript'. I would hope we could cater
for specialization just in the executionContext alone (hopefully not
requiring any special structure, just special element/attribute
content).

Steve

2009/6/8 Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>:
> Dale:
>
> We'll put that on the agenda for next week (6/16)
>
> jacques
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:09 AM
> To: Jacques R. Durand; stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com;
> tamie@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [tamie] 'monitoringScript' ? - why not just 'script' ?
>
> +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
>
>