Re: A few comments on SpecGL

At 03:45 PM 8/1/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote:

>In my opinion, I do not see any conflict in the use of the term "clause" 
>the glossary specifically define it as a "part" not a section of the 
>specification and the checkpoint reiterate that position . Ck. 10-2 does 
>not contradict the idea it only makes a recommendation. If the term 
>"clause" continues to be misleading, I recommend the term "Conformance 
>Statement(s)".

Unless someone object or argues for an alternative, for the next SpecGL 
draft, I will leave it as "conformance clause", with clarifications.  But I 
think that the definition in the QA Glossary is faulty or at least 
misleading (no need to argue about which):

"Part of a specification which defines the requirements that must be 
satisfied to claim conformance to part of the specification".

"Part" is singular and suggests one piece, i.e., a section.  Replacing it 
with "a part or collection of parts" is much better, IMO.  See next (4-aug) 
draft when it is ready.

-Lofton.