70 only:
I though we agreed in meeting that what it might add in specificity, it would more than lose in clarity, complexity, and likeliness to be out of sync with the last published version.
"When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us."
-- Alexander Graham Bell
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
Editor, OASIS EMIX, Energy Interoperation
Finance & Administration IT
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Email:
Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073
http://www.oasis-open.org
http://www.NewDaedalus.com
From: Gemmill, Craig [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:42 PM
To: ; Considine, Toby; Bogen, Chris ERDC-RDE-ITL-MS
Subject: JIRA issues for core
I have a couple of questions on the core spec issues:
·
JIRA 70 – I would prefer to leave it as is, because the only thing I think would work is a note under the Table title that says for details about each type see the corresponding Section. But even this seems redundant to the paragraph
before the picture.
·
JIRA 71 – See my comment on this one – would ascending priority (instead of the current descending) be a sufficient fix?
·
JIRA 68 – pluralized contracts – can we just put the whole thing including the pluralization in the contract typeface? Would be easier to read.
Thanks,
Craig
