Was 'USS file' never officially blessed for this purpose? Seems like a natural solution forever. Worst case 'OMVS file' should work.
. . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 4:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Terminology - Datasets On 26 April 2017 at 12:35, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > It matters in documentation. If we were to document the FOO parameter > as "specify the name of a file" that would leave you wondering what we > meant, unless other context made it clear. We say "specify the name of > an MVS dataset" or "specify the name of a zFS file" or some combination > thereof. While we're on this... I discourage people here from documenting things like "specify the name of a zFS file". Who knows how long zFS will be around? HFS seems to be effectively dead. Maybe in a couple of years a great new QFS or something will be the UNIX file system du jour on z/OS. One of our product's docs were full of "HFS" references from ten years ago, but had nothing to do with defining a new HFS or the like; they just meant UNIX file, as opposed to MVS dataset. So that's what we say now: "UNIX file", or in the rare case it's possible to be confused with a file on another UNIX system, "z/OS UNIX file". Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
