[ubl-lcsc] [QA Team] 1/7/2003: Feedback on Methodology Paper

[Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>]

Suggestions for QA Friday meeting:
1. Use the CCTS definition of context (in addition to other detail).
2.  Address how Content Assembly may cohere, interoperate, be relevant
with CAM?

Monica

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa-Aeon [mailto:lseaburg@aeon-llc.com]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:00 AM
To: Marion Royal; Ubl-Lcsc
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