[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Tr: Glossary comments from Quality Review
Colin and Team,
At the steering committee conference call today the glossary was approved as an internal document. However, we need to address the comments below from QR and present a revised version within two weeks. Can you have a look at it, Collin?
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim McGrath
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Glossary comments from Quality Review
At the Vancouver plenary, the TA Team gave notice of their intention to ask the Steering Committee to vote on the ebXML Glossary at its next meeting. Assuming this is the meeting of February 28th, the Quality Review team would like to table its comments on this document.
The QR team have reviewed the Glossary from the perspective of both its structural integrity and its choice of attributed sources for definitions. On these points our comments are:
d. redundant or superfluous definitions
e. the document needs a version and datestamp on it
sources for definitions
However, the QR team do not see these issues as preventing us from recommending that this version of the ebXML Glossary (version 95??) be accepted by the Steering Committee.
Having made that recommendation, the QR team have some concerns about the quality of some definitions used here.
Many ebXML documents rely on the glossary (for examples they don’t include their own acronym or definition sections). Whilst we do not presume to judge the validity of the Glossary terms and their definitions, when it comes to practical application of this Glossary there are many cases where:
a. the definitions appear out of context or too generalised to add any real value to understanding the use of the term within the technical specifications. For an example of what we mean, see the definition for "Client", "Model" or "Argument".
b. the definitions are too specific to parts of the ebXML framework. For example "Date" relates only to this term's use within the core component specifications.
These weaknesses are commonplace and as such, jeopardise the value of this
Glossary as a useful reference. Therefore, we would ask the Steering
Committee to task the Glossary team with addressing all of these issues before
the next release of this document and suggest that revision be completed prior
to the second round of review for the final ebXML specifications (ie March
Powered by eList eXpress LLC