Thanks Nikola - that clears it up.
Regarding:
<Quote>
Are we talking about the "context" here? Is that one of the Things that
the subteam "should" model?
</Quote>
We are talking about the metadata representations for this verification
test, rather than the context. The context (Geopolitical context,
Business Process context, etc.) could be handled separately - perhaps by
the CAM TC?
David W.?
Joe
Nikola wrote:
>
> <Joe>
> For [1], you wrote:
>
> <Quote1>
> [1] CCTS abstract model -> RIM
>
> This is what I think Joe is referring to as "RIM binding". I'd say this
> could be sufficient. Subteam certainly shouldn't attempt this:
> </Quote1>
>
> Did you mean to say "Subteam certainly SHOULD attempt this"? You also
> wrote "shouldn't" for [2], so I thought that at least one of the these
> should be "should" (pardon the tricky English!)
> </Joe>
>
> "I'd say this" -> "this" refersTo [1]. I used sufficient, because I thought
> "should" is not in question "here"; yes, "Subteam certainly SHOULD attempt
> this".
>
> "shouldn't attempt this:" -> "this:" refersTo [2].
>
> Are we talking about the "context" here? Is that one of the Things that the
> subteam "should" model?
>
> Cheers,
> Nikola
