- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:36:11 -0700
- To: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
What is the motivation for using a different term than fluent? Maybe: it is too formal, and no one heard of it? If so, then I'm not sure that effectivity will be much of an improvement. Although people talk about it a lot around Boeing, I have not grasped its essential meaning in a way that I could define it. Your definition helps a lot, actually... Separate point: what would be the grammatical form of 'effectivity' to use? Presumably not: one effectivity / two effectivities, to replace fluent/fluents That is pretty awkward-sounding. Mike ============================================ Mike Uschold Tel: 425 865-3605 Fax: 425 865-2965 ============================================ > -----Original Message----- > From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:23 PM > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: [OEP] A possible alternative term for fluent > > > > > OEPers: > > A recent email reminded me of the term "effectivity". This > is the term > used in manufacturing product engineering for the concept of > a model being "effective" during a certain time frame. In > Product Data Management (PDM) systems that support this, a > different product/process design can be presented to > manufacturing depending on shift or date. > > This seems similar to the idea of fluent as I understand it. > Effectivity > might therefore be a reasonable substitute for the term > fluent if OEP > produces a note on this. > > -Evan > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 22:36:23 UTC