matt is correct that this is now a redundant paper. A shorter and more
appropriate version based on our experience with the latest modeling
exercise will be part of the 0p70 release documents.
Lisa-Aeon wrote:
>Marion,
>Here is the feedback from Matt on the Methodology paper. Matt brings up
>some interesting thoughts.
>
>I would like to put this on the agenda for the next QA Team Meeting.
>
>Lisa
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Matthew Gertner" <>
>To: "Lisa-Aeon" <>
>Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:54 AM
>Subject: QA Feedback
>
>
>Lisa,
>
>I am attaching a slightly marked up version of Tim's methodology paper.
>I made a few editorial changes. In general it was unclear to me who the
>intended audience of this document is and what it current stage of
>development is. It appeared to me that the entire text is right now only
>introduction for some expose to come of the actual UBL methodology. Is
>this correct?
>
>I would almost tend to say that the text is too long and not entirely
>focused on the problem at hand. It is an interesting and enlightened
>discussion of what is meant my document engineering, but do we need this
>as a UBL deliverable? Certainly I would personally be more interested in
>understanding the exact structure of the LC SC spreadsheet, what fields
>mean what, examples of particularly tricky cases and how they are
>solved, reasons why a move to a more database-oriented format is felt
>necessary, etc.
>
>Cheers,
>Matt
>
>
--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
