I agree with Charles - I like the changes for pass -> passed, warn -> warning, and fail -> failed but would prefer to see erroneous be error.
Regards, David ____________________________________________________ David Brauneis STSM, Rational Software Delivery Automation Chief Architect email: [email protected] | phone: 720-395-5659 | mobile: 919-656-0874 From: Charles Rankin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected], Date: 09/13/2012 03:17 PM Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Regarding oslc_auto:verdict in OSLC automation spec Sent by: [email protected] [email protected] wrote on 09/13/2012 09:34:09 AM: > From: Xin Peng Liu <[email protected]> > > I looked through the latest spec, and found for the several values of > oslc_auto:verdict, seems not all of them are of the same part of > speech, but for oslc_auto:state, the values are consistent to be > adjective. I assume values of oslc_auto:verdict should all be adjective > or noun (better adjective). That sounds like a reasonable request > If all adjective, then we get: > http://open-services.net/ns/auto#unavailable > http://open-services.net/ns/auto#passed > http://open-services.net/ns/auto#warning > http://open-services.net/ns/auto#failed > http://open-services.net/ns/auto#erroneous I like this version better. I definitely like changing pass->passed and fail->failed. I'm not keen on "erroneous". I think that "error", while not an adjective, actually reads well and feels better. If you plug them all into the sentence "The automation is in a/an <state> state", they all read fine. Charles Rankin_______________________________________________ Oslc-Automation mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
