emix — archive

Source and Content

From: William Cox <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:34:00 -0000

Hmm. I was going to say drop the source warrant... My reasoning: what's delivered to the customer has contents; tracing to actual source is as we've seen usually disconnected by way of markets for green certification . So the assertions about the product delivered seem to me to be more clearly the contents, rather than source. The alternate argument is that the source for your product reflects the contents, so they're related. That said, I agree that one needs to go, and I don't care very strongly which. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 9/4/11 11:52 AM, Ed Cazalet wrote: [email protected] type= cite > X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I recommend we can drop the Content Warrant. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 [email protected] www.cazalet.com From: Toby Considine [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:23 AM To: Aaron Snyder; 'Edward G. Cazalet'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [emix] Source and Content The current specification has both Source and Content Warrants. I have been unable to find any definition that distinguishes between these two, and on the CPUC site, they appear to be identical. Any suggestions? The choices are (1) Find a distinguishing definition (2) Delete one or the other. “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw. Toby Considine TC9, Inc TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Email: [email protected] Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com