RE: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work time!

That's great thanks!

 

Peter

From: prasanta behera 
[mailto:] 
Sent: 04 November 2005 
02:10
To: ; 
Cc: Brown, 
Al; soa-rm-editors
Subject: Re: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work 
time!

I can's post it to the editors. Here are my proff-read type 
comments. (I have NOT listed my issues)

  
line 98 
  – "remain relevant" -  it is not a definitive statement - 
   we have to say it is or will be  …
  
Line 112 
  – "rapid understanding"  --- don't feel good about the word 
  "rapid – we think it will help but "rapid" – don't know.
  
Line 127 
  – Section 4 headline is "Conformance … " and  not 
  "compliance with this reference…"
  
Line 129 
  – We said that Glossary will be normative but line 129 says otherwise.
  
Line 
  158  "such aspects as functions" – it should be 
  "functional"
  
Line 163 
  – "selecting" may be a better word than "sorting"
  
Line 176 
  – "Couched?" – what's that
  
Line 
  177-181  is a hard read :--(
  
Line 
  192-193 – Not clear what is the rational behind it
  
Line 203 
  – "Any requirement" – may mean that one or more requirements may be enough. 
  How about removing the "any" word.
  
Line 
  217-218 – unclear 
  
Line 235 
  – "unifier for" à "unifier of"
  
Line 255 
  "access so that the existing…"
  
Line 259 
  -261 – I would prefer "This information allows prospective consumers 
   …" The searchable idea makes it unclear.
  
Line 285 
  – In Line 256 service was defined as a "means for access". Here it is 
  different. It would better to be consistent.
  
Line 303 
  – Does the state always change? I do not agree. This could be an issue and may 
  be deferred.
  
Line 329 
  – Function is not clearly stated - Are those capabilities or (maps to 
  operations).
  
Line 357 
  – The service description does not have to tell that the service is reachable 
  or not but it should provide a mechanism to determine that. The service 
  description could be outside the service.
  
Line 366 
  – not clear what's the idea.
  
Line 381 
  – No such section (2.2.2)
  
Line 392 
  Item 5 (add in section 3.2.2) 

I am 
sure I missed few … hopefully this helps.

Thanks,
/Prasanta

On 11/2/05, Peter F 
Brown <> 
wrote:

  
OK, let's 
  roll

  
 

  
Peter

  

  
  From: Brown, Al [mailto:] 
  
Sent: 02 November 2005 18:42
To: prasanta behera; 
Cc: 
  soa-rm-editors
Subject: RE: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - Work 
  time!

  

  

  
That is fine with me. 
   I can have a draft back with comments by Friday. -Al

  
 

  

  

  
  

  
From: 
  prasanta behera [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, November 
  02, 2005 9:40 AM
To: 
Cc: Brown, Al; soa-rm-editors
Subject: Re: SOA-RM v10 Proof-reading - 
  Work time!

  
 

  
Peter,

I can do it. I can do section 1.0 - 3.2. 
  If Al can look at 3.3->5 and you the rest, we will be in a good 
  shape.

Thanks,
/Prasanta

  

  
On 
  11/2/05, Peter F Brown < > 
  wrote:

  
Prasanta, Al:
Following today's TC conf call, the 
  time has come for us to do a proof-reading of the new v10ED version before 
  release to the list and the whole TC (copy attached).

We are looking 
  for:
- grammatical, typo and formatting errors;
- inconsistencies in 
  wording at different points in the text;
- ambiguity about intended 
  meaning;

Could you indicate:
- whether you can contribute in a short 
  time frame; 
- which section(s) you would prefer to tackle *in detail* (we 
  will all three of us need to look through the whole text to assess 
  consistency).

I will in any case look at the Glossary and consistency 
  with rest of text as part of my responsibility for that section.

I 
  would hope that we could turn this around by the end of the weekend so that 
  Matt can post to list next Monday. 
  

Peter