--On Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:26 -0800 Dan Li <lidan@cisco.com>
wrote:
>> At 09:18 AM 12/12/01 -0700, Ian Cooper wrote:
>>
>> The relationship is clear, yes. Suggestions that the two groups are
>> using different terms for the same entities have me concerned. Lisa's
>> draft also outlines aspects that are not covered by the current RUP
>> requirements and I would like to see at least some discussion as to
>> whether they belong in RUP or not. "No" is equally as good as "yes"; I
>> want to see the group decide on its answer, that's all. (I realize we've
>> addressed at least one of those aspects as "no" already [metadata
>> update]; it may at least be worth considering how this might be added to
>> a RUP protocol in the future so that we have some idea of how WEBI's RUP
>> work corresponds to CDI's work. Ending up defining two protocols that
>> are essentially the same seems like a waste of time to me.)
>
>
> The fields that CDI has but RUP doesn't are to be defined as opaque RUP
> options, by the CDI group, because they are domain specific to CDI. see
> Lisa's doc.
OK, though I don't recall that decision actually being made. I just want
to make sure folks have thought about this, to ensure that opaque options
for CDI really should be opaque options rather than as part of the core
protocol. My apologies if trying to get the group to move along is causing
me to re-ask questions; point me to the group's decision in the archives
where appropriate.
I'm still concerned at the use of different nounphrases in the two areas.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST