This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

SAEAF Editing Crew: Update Page for Cliff Thompson

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is Cliff's page. Link to main SAEAF Editing Crew page: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=SAEAF_Editing_Crew

Thanks Eddie for setting up this page.

Eddie, Can you post the procedure someplace for setting up link pages on this wiki? I read the Help, thanks Eddie but you don't need to show how to set this up.


My comments on Charlie's comments in response to my comments on his 12/13 version of the ECCF document follow:

Explanation: each comment is formatted as: CTx text, CMx text, CLTx text -- which corresponds to my comment, followed by Charlie's comment, followed by my clarification comment.

CT6 here ECCF is called a framework, on the first page it is called a sub-framework. CM6: The ECCF is a sub-framework of SAEAF. It is a framework in and of itself. CLT6 - this is the only place in this document that ECCF is called a sub-framework. Otherwise is is called a framework. (Karen - if you're talking about just the ECCF, it would be Ok to use the term "framework." If you're talking about ECCF as a sub-framework of SAEAF, that would also be OK.)

CT16 why is traceability only "down"? in the example of provenance, does not ranceability also go "up" the stack? CM16: Traceability is defined in standard software engineering as bi-directional. However, in the ECCF, we have separated out traceability as “down” and provenance as “up” and attempted to define the terms clearly and explicitly. The motivation was to be able to specifically call out provenance, which has other implications in the GF. If you feel strongly about this, we can a) make the traceability arrow bi-directional and b) change the text accordingly without damaging the definition of provenance. YOUR CALL. CLT16 - as a Business Architect who works with the entire life cycle from beginning to end, I'd be inclined to go in both directions, since this is what I need to do on a project.

CT19 Is WI formally defined somewhere in the eccf document? Or is it just defined by examples? CM19: the SAEAF Introduction is where it should be defined and discussed since it is the raison d’être of SAEAF. CLT19 -- maybe this is where the Glossary comes in since I may not read the Intro except in very selected parts. (Karen - yes, I defined WI in the Introduction.)

CT21 why is provenance not also traced from destination back up to origination? CM21: because Jane Curry – author of the GF – says that that’s not the correct definition of the term. Please check with her on this issue CLT21 -- I'll ask Jane Curry on this.

CT22 usually, the MDA layers are on the left side and the viewpoints on the top, why is that different here? CM22: to the edges of the SS and the Implementation could be clearly labeled CLT22, does this mean that to be consistent the MDA part could be to the left? (Karen - I would leave the graphics as is and add an explanation to the caption that the MDA layers are at the top in the layered (3-D) graphics.)

CT33 it is probably me, but I don't understand how a term can no longer be used in one context can be used in a context which is suppose to be consistent with the original context? CM33: Sorry – I don’t understand your question. If you can explain it a bit more, maybe I can answer it…CLT33, the statement made does not logically follow is what I'm saying -- I'll have to think about this a bit.

General comment or 2-cents worth When I read a document like the SAEAF Book, I tend to read the parts that I want to get information on, which means I would go to the ECCF part of the document in this case. I would only read selective parts of the Introduction. I would look a term up in the Glossary if the convention was something like the first time a Glossary term is introduced, it is set aside in CAPs and bolded or some other convention to point to the Glossary. I might read the Introduction if you pointed me to the exact spot in the Intro to read, but I'd not going to eagerly read 71 pages to get to something of interest.

Related Pages