[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (TOSCA-10) Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface
Hi Thomas. You and I are in agreement. I meant to suggest to uncapitalize (and also put spaces between) the words DeploymentArtifact, DeploymentArtifacts and RelationshipTypeProperties in lines 896/897, 900/901 and 942/946. My last comment "This is why it makes sense to monospace the keywords, so there is no ambiguity" did not mean to suggest to monospace these words in these lines, but I can see how it might be interpreted that way. I just meant this demonstrates the value of monospacing the keywords when used as keywords -- and also the value of not capitalizing them when not used as keywords... Best, --Richard -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Spatzier [mailto:thomas.spatzier@de.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:03 AM To: Probst, Richard Cc: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [tosca] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (TOSCA-10) Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface Hi Richard, regarding your last comment, I would still prefer to not monotype the occurrences of those word, but I also understand that the capitalization is misleading. My suggestion would be to un-capitalize the respective words to make them appear as words from the natural language and avoid mixing them up with keywords. Would that be ok? BTW: I did not see your comment in the JIRA issue so I took the freedom and pasted the important part there to have a complete history in the issue. Also added my response in JIRA. Regards, Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- SmartCloud Orchestrator Development Tivoli Master Inventor IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH, C397, Schoenaicher Str. 220, D-71032 Boeblingen, Germany thomas.spatzier@de.ibm.com | +49-7031-16-1219 IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 From: "Probst, Richard" <richard.probst@sap.com> To: Thomas Spatzier/Germany/IBM@IBMDE Cc: OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>, "tosca@lists.oasis-open.org" <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 10.03.2012 01:42 Subject: RE: [tosca] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (TOSCA-10) Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface Sent by: <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> Thomas, thanks for your feedback. I now see that "ProcessDeployedOnProperties" is an example and not a keyword; oops. For these 6 cases, you had basically the same response: Line 896: DeploymentArtifact Line 897: DeploymentArtifact Line 900: DeploymentArtifacts Line 901: DeploymentArtifacts Line 942: RelationshipTypeProperties Line 946: RelationshipTypeProperties --> We did not format by intention: we do not refer to the element here, but rather to the concept ... ; we also have a space between the two words to express that. This is done similarly in other places. Please comment if you think this is misleading. Yes, I think this is a source of confusion (at least it was for me). I think what threw me off was the capitalization. If I have a language construct called Class, and I then want to talk about why one needs to have classes, I wouldn't capitalize the word. But if I want to give an example of how to create the Class called "Server" (for example), then I would capitalize it, to indicate I meant the keyword. And you took this same approach, when you uncapitalized "properties" in lines 942/946. But should deployment artifact be capitalized? What do others think? This is why it makes sense to monospace the keywords, so there is no ambiguity. Best, --Richard -----Original Message----- From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of OASIS Issues Tracker Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 3:13 AM To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [tosca] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (TOSCA-10) Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TOSCA-10?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=29722#action_29722 ] Thomas Spatzier commented on TOSCA-10: --------------------------------------- Richard, thanks for your thourough review. I incorporated most of the changes. Also, the semi-automatic format change to use size 11 for Courier New worked, so it looks better now. Some comments on specific items in your recent comment(s): Line 156: targetNamespace --> ok, fixed in new revision of WD03 Line 292: SourceNodeTemplate Line 292: TargetNodeTemplate --> this (both) is actually a bug, since this is out of synch with the schema; fixed text and formating in new revision of WD03 Line 695: ProcessDeployedOnProperties --> We did not use Courier New font here since this is not a keyword, but an example. I added quotation marks in the new revision of WD03 to mark this. That's what we do also in other places where we have examples. Line 875/876: EnvironmentConstraints --> already formated in the version I am looking at (so fixed in WD03) Line 896: DeploymentArtifact Line 897: DeploymentArtifact --> We did not format by intention: we do not refer to the element here, but rather to the concept of a "Deployment Artifact"; we also have a space between the two words to express that. This is done similarly in other places. Please comment if you think this is misleading. Line 898: nodeType --> ok, fixed in new revision of WD03 Line 900: DeploymentArtifacts Line 901: DeploymentArtifacts --> We did not format by intention: we do not refer to the element here, but rather to the concept of a "Deployment Artifact"; we also have a space between the two words to express that. This is done similarly in other places. Please comment if you think this is misleading. Line 942: RelationshipTypeProperties Line 946: RelationshipTypeProperties --> This is another spot where we refer to the concept of a Relationship Type and its properties, and not the to the actual schema element. Therefore, no special formating. In the new revision I changed properties to lower-case p to really just have the concept "Relationship Type" named and then express that we are talking about its properties. Line 953/954: RelationshipTypeProperties --> Same as above: we refer to the concept, not the element. > Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: TOSCA-10 > URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TOSCA-10 > Project: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC > Issue Type: Task > Components: Spec > Affects Versions: CSD2 > Reporter: Paul Lipton > Assignee: Arvind Srinivasan > Fix For: CSD2 > > > From approved motion made at TC meeting of March 1, 2012 (see meeting minutes at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tosca/download.php/45330/latest ). > Motion: Entity names from the metamodel in the spec should be specified in a monospaced typeface, such as New Courier. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tosca-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: tosca-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]