RE: [tosca] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (TOSCA-10) Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface

["Probst, Richard" <richard.probst@sap.com>]

Thomas, thanks for your feedback. I now see that "ProcessDeployedOnProperties" is an example and not a keyword; oops.

For these 6 cases, you had basically the same response:

	Line 896: DeploymentArtifact
	Line 897: DeploymentArtifact
	Line 900: DeploymentArtifacts
	Line 901: DeploymentArtifacts
	Line 942: RelationshipTypeProperties
	Line 946: RelationshipTypeProperties

	--> We did not format by intention: we do not refer to the element here, 
	but rather to the concept ... ; we also have a space between the two words 
	to express that. This is done similarly in other places. Please comment if 
	you think this is misleading.

Yes, I think this is a source of confusion (at least it was for me). I think what threw me off was the capitalization. 

If I have a language construct called Class, and I then want to talk about why one needs to have classes, I wouldn't capitalize the word. But if I want to give an example of how to create the Class called "Server" (for example), then I would capitalize it, to indicate I meant the keyword.

And you took this same approach, when you uncapitalized "properties" in lines 942/946. But should deployment artifact be capitalized? What do others think?

This is why it makes sense to monospace the keywords, so there is no ambiguity. 

Best,
  --Richard




-----Original Message-----
From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of OASIS Issues Tracker
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 3:13 AM
To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tosca] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (TOSCA-10) Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface


    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TOSCA-10?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=29722#action_29722 ] 

Thomas Spatzier  commented on TOSCA-10:
---------------------------------------

Richard, thanks for your thourough review. I incorporated most of the changes. Also, the semi-automatic format change to use size 11 for Courier New worked, so it looks better now. 

Some comments on specific items in your recent comment(s):

Line 156: targetNamespace --> ok, fixed in new revision of WD03

Line 292: SourceNodeTemplate
Line 292: TargetNodeTemplate
--> this (both) is actually a bug, since this is out of synch with the schema; fixed text and formating in new revision of WD03

Line 695: ProcessDeployedOnProperties
--> We did not use Courier New font here since this is not a keyword, but an example. I added quotation marks in the new revision of WD03 to mark this. That's what we do also in other places where we have examples.

Line 875/876: EnvironmentConstraints --> already formated in the version I am looking at (so fixed in WD03)


Line 896: DeploymentArtifact
Line 897: DeploymentArtifact
--> We did not format by intention: we do not refer to the element here, but rather to the concept of a "Deployment Artifact"; we also have a space between the two words to express that. This is done similarly in other places. Please comment if you think this is misleading.

Line 898: nodeType --> ok, fixed in new revision of WD03

Line 900: DeploymentArtifacts
Line 901: DeploymentArtifacts
--> We did not format by intention: we do not refer to the element here, but rather to the concept of a "Deployment Artifact"; we also have a space between the two words to express that. This is done similarly in other places. Please comment if you think this is misleading.

Line 942: RelationshipTypeProperties
Line 946: RelationshipTypeProperties
--> This is another spot where we refer to the concept of a Relationship Type and its properties, and not the to the actual schema element. Therefore, no special formating. In the new revision I changed properties to lower-case p to really just have the concept "Relationship Type" named and then express that we are talking about its properties.

Line 953/954: RelationshipTypeProperties 
--> Same as above: we refer to the concept, not the element.

> Metamodel entity names should be in monospaced typeface
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TOSCA-10
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TOSCA-10
>             Project: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Spec
>    Affects Versions: CSD2
>            Reporter: Paul Lipton 
>            Assignee: Arvind Srinivasan 
>             Fix For: CSD2
>
>
> From approved motion made at TC meeting of March 1, 2012 (see meeting minutes at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tosca/download.php/45330/latest). 
> Motion: Entity names from the metamodel in the spec should be specified in a monospaced typeface, such as New Courier.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tosca-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tosca-help@lists.oasis-open.org