Re: proposed text for LC96 -

Nevermind - I just figured it out.

lynne

At 07:42 AM 6/10/2003, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>It would be acceptable to add more text to the discussion - however, my 
>comment about your suggestion is HUH?  I don't understand it.  It seems 
>very complex.  Can you suggest something much more simpler and straight 
>forward?
>
>lynne
>
>
>
>>>We decided that CP 3.1 requires that the minimal requirements  be a 
>>>collection in 1 place rather than distributed in the document.
>>>
>>>Proposal is to add a sentence to the existing rationale - so that it 
>>>reads as follows:
>>>
>>>Rationale: the reader must be able to recognize any minimum 
>>>functionality, complexity or support that applies to conforming products 
>>>of a specific class.  It helps the reader find these requirements by 
>>>presenting them as a collection, in one place rather than distributed 
>>>throughout the document.
>>>
>>>
>>>Any Comments?
>>
>>I think that it would be useful, in the Discussion, to add a little more 
>>detail, especially to the "distributed throughout the document" 
>>notion.  Specifically, capture some of the reasoning that we went through 
>>(in telecon) in order to conclude that this should be Priority 
>>2.  Something like, "If the specification is written in conformance to 
>>other requirements in this SpecGL, then any universal minima will be 
>>implicitly represented amongst the specific conformance requirements of 
>>the individual CoPs.  In principle, then, the universal minima can be 
>>derived.  However, such derivation could be complex and error-prone."
>>
>>Question.  If we believe this to be true, then does this have any bearing 
>>on the question of LC-95 -- is GL3 a DoV?
>>
>>-Lofton.