[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] [QA Team] Feedback on Methodology Paper
Marion, Here is the feedback from Matt on the Methodology paper. Matt brings up some interesting thoughts. I would like to put this on the agenda for the next QA Team Meeting. Lisa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Gertner" <matthew.gertner@acepoint.cz> To: "Lisa-Aeon" <lseaburg@aeon-llc.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:54 AM Subject: QA Feedback Lisa, I am attaching a slightly marked up version of Tim's methodology paper. I made a few editorial changes. In general it was unclear to me who the intended audience of this document is and what it current stage of development is. It appeared to me that the entire text is right now only introduction for some expose to come of the actual UBL methodology. Is this correct? I would almost tend to say that the text is too long and not entirely focused on the problem at hand. It is an interesting and enlightened discussion of what is meant my document engineering, but do we need this as a UBL deliverable? Certainly I would personally be more interested in understanding the exact structure of the LC SC spreadsheet, what fields mean what, examples of particularly tricky cases and how they are solved, reasons why a move to a more database-oriented format is felt necessary, etc. Cheers, Matt
Attachment:
position-mcgrath-methodology-01.doc
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC