Re: A few comments on SpecGL

I've been out of things for awhile - so, I don't understand what the 
problem is. Conformance clause has been an accepted and widely used 
term.  What is the objection to using the 'clause'.   Is there really a 
confusion over the use of the term or are we anticipating that people 
aren't able to figure out what is meant.

Lynne

At 05:32 PM 8/1/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>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.
>
>