User talk:Dzonatas Sol/AWG Design Document Template - Revision history

Rob Linden: Talk:AWG Design Document Template moved to User talk:Dzonatas Sol/AWG Design Document Template

2007-11-07T00:00:50Z

Talk:AWG Design Document Template moved to User talk:Dzonatas Sol/AWG Design Document Template

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:00, 6 November 2007
(No difference)

Zha Ewry: Proposal.. Discuss

2007-10-22T05:41:13Z

Proposal.. Discuss

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 21 October 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:* If you want, create a Design Document VAG? =) [[User:Dzonatas Sol\|Dzonatas Sol]] 12:14, 21 October 2007 (PDT)		:* If you want, create a Design Document VAG? =) [[User:Dzonatas Sol\|Dzonatas Sol]] 12:14, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

			* The document here, is being presented as a process.. as a decided way we are doing business. It is, at best a proposal for how to approach the design effort. I have flagged it as such. A discussion, with the many stakeholders involved, leading to a design process, is deeply appropriate here. I also refer the reader to the
			[[AWG_Process\|Process]] proposal for further thoughts on the process we are taking. I would politely observe that it is a more collegial place for discussion on this topic than a template.

Dzonatas Sol at 19:14, 21 October 2007

2007-10-21T19:14:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 21 October 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:

	:* "Design Document Template" should be renamed to something else which reflects what they actually are, for example "Term Definition Template". --[[User:Morgaine Dinova\|Morgaine Dinova]] 11:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)		:* "Design Document Template" should be renamed to something else which reflects what they actually are, for example "Term Definition Template". --[[User:Morgaine Dinova\|Morgaine Dinova]] 11:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

			:* I disagree with the glossary being the main focus and the best way to start a design for an architecture. It has already led to generalizations that confuse each one of us. Even if the glossary statements are valid for a term, that does not make them automatically valid for the given model, which Zero presented and Tao further described.

			:* Any term being used that does not fall in the scope to describe the given model belongs in the glossary rather than in a design document. The glossary can also hold the names we give to the descriptions of the model. That is where they work together and the wiki makes it easy to refer to each other.

			:* If you want, create a Design Document VAG? =) [[User:Dzonatas Sol\|Dzonatas Sol]] 12:14, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

Morgaine Dinova: New page: * "'''Design Document Template -- ???'''" :* These pages arose out of refactoring of the AWG Glossary entries, which itself was done without discussion, unilaterally. This was OK in itsel...

2007-10-21T18:43:25Z

New page: * "'''Design Document Template -- ???'''" :* These pages arose out of refactoring of the AWG Glossary entries, which itself was done without discussion, unilaterally. This was OK in itsel...

New page

* "'''Design Document Template -- ???'''"
:* These pages arose out of refactoring of the AWG Glossary entries, which itself was done without discussion, unilaterally. This was OK in itself since it involved no change in semantics. But now, what used to be simply factored out explanations of glossary terms have been turned into "design documents", and thus the focus of the design process. This runs 100% counter to the concept of viewpoints, which generate the Archtectural Descriptions and Views that describe the architecture. The terms in the glossary certainly can't be the focus of design, since they're all independent whereas design is about composition.

:* "Design Document Template" should be renamed to something else which reflects what they actually are, for example "Term Definition Template". --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 11:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)