Difference between revisions of "User talk:Finrod Meriman/AWG Feedback"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* I've written a comment about it in the [[Talk:Multiple_Domains#How to link domains]] page. ---[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 12:07, 26 September 2007 (PDT) | * I've written a comment about it in the [[Talk:Multiple_Domains#How to link domains]] page. ---[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 12:07, 26 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
Mic - good summary. I'd also like to understand better how the data moves around, especially geometry. Collada was a good point | Mic - good summary. I'd also like to understand better how the data moves around, especially geometry. Collada was a good point and some standard (any standard!) would be good. For companies, they will want two things: Security and a way to control and import content --[[User:Burhop Piccard|Burhop Piccard]] 17:43, 3 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:46, 3 October 2007
2) Make our architectural "views" explicit.
- I indentified with your comments here strongly, because I've been trying to analyse the basis for claimed scalability in the AWG architectural diagrams and did not find what I was looking for. Taking the perspective of your report and with a nod to IEEE-1471, I find that the scalability viewpoint has not been described, just as you found that the functional viewpoint was hard to discern.
- I've written a comment about it in the Talk:Multiple_Domains#How to link domains page. ---Morgaine Dinova 12:07, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
Mic - good summary. I'd also like to understand better how the data moves around, especially geometry. Collada was a good point and some standard (any standard!) would be good. For companies, they will want two things: Security and a way to control and import content --Burhop Piccard 17:43, 3 October 2007 (PDT)