Re: terminology was Re: Model draft
"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Wed, 09 January 2008 18:00 UTC
Message-Id: <WED.9.JAN.2008.130025.0500.>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:00:25 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Subject: Re: terminology was Re: Model draft
Comments: To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Discussion below... >>> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:33 AM >>> >>>> I believe that you are correct. >>>> Component includes both <component> (in LFBs and structs) and >>>> <capability> elements. >>>> So yes, you have understood what the document is saying. >>> That's a relief:-) >>> >>>> And yes, what you have written needs to be said somewhere in the >>>> document. Probably along with fixing some references to become >>>> "Component". (If I had enough good words, I would just use lower case >>>> component for the english, and have some other words for the LFB and >>>> struct pieces. But I am all out of words.) >>>> One idea would be to use <component> in the <capabilities> section, so >>>> that there are capability components, other LFB components, and struct >>>> components. Would that work? >>>> > > I think so but I am uncertain about 'other LFB components'; you exclude ports > and events, which agree with, so for me that just leaves the <components> in the > LFBClassDef, which I take to be the operational components of s4.7 (a usage I > like) ie would not operational components be a better term than other LFB > components? > > No strong preference, you choose and then I will revisit my boggy areas in the > I-D to see if I can suggest some clearer terminology I'll have to think about it. We could refer to the fields defined in the <components> element as operational components (rather than "other LFB components") I am not sure why I have a negative reaction to that. I am concerned that we would end up back with inconsistent usage. I would be interested to hear from other people as to whether 1) it would be helpful to refer to "capability components" and if so 2) whether it would be a good idea to refer to "operational components" for the rest leading to 3) Should the <components> and <component> XML elements then be something else. (I hope not, as I would prefer not to mess with the XML at this stage of the game.) Yours, Joel
- Re: terminology was Re: Model draft tom.petch
- Re: terminology was Re: Model draft Joel M. Halpern
- Re: terminology was Re: Model draft Joel M. Halpern
- Re: terminology was Re: Model draft tom.petch
- Re: terminology was Re: Model draft Joel M. Halpern
- terminology was Re: Model draft tom.petch