[infod-wg] Comments on spec

[Steve Fisher]

Comments on 

https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/infod-wg/document/INFOD_Interfaces-draft/en/12

i.e. version 12 of the spec

--------------------------------------

One general problem is that it does not properly reflect that fact
that this is supposed to be the INFOD base specification.

This requires an change to the title to include the words "base
specification" and a version number which will be 1 when it finally
goes out. Compare our title with the most recent GGF doc:

http://www.ggf.org/documents/GFD.56.pdf

The cover page should say GWD-R not I and it should be clear that this is a recommendation document. See:

http://www.ggf.org/ggf_docs_process.htm

for the requirements and GFD.56 as an example

The last para of the abstract is not approriate for this kind of
document - I would just drop it.

All diagrams should avoid colour.

All mention of PO boxes and disseminators must be completely removed
from this document - there should be no forward reference to a
companion specification.

On page 4 we also say that consumers can specify what is considered to
be an event. This does not belong in the base spec. I don't think we
have the intelligent cloud in the base spec either.

There are references to INFODU and INFODPAT - did we not agree to merge these?

On page 5 we should probably only list those requiremnts met by this
spec. Or at least we should amrk clearly those which we don't address.

Page 6. I think we should drop the non-goals section. If people have
not even consider that INFOD might cover these areas it will just add
to confusion.

Page 7 and beyond. It is still not clear if we have INFOD objects as
well as entities and precisley how they defined (if they both exist)

Page 7 says user vocabularies have to be defined by INFOD users. And
in the next sentence "user vocaularies are optional". Both statements
cannot be true!

Page 7 defines vocabulary associations. Is this statement only corretc
for user data vocaularies?

Page 7 the semantics of altering (and deleting) vocaularies needs to
be thought through and described. Maybe it has been thought through -
but it certianyl has not been described.

Page 9 When you add a version do you get a tree of versions? When you
deregister do you delete a node - can it be a non-leaf node or do you
destroy everything?

Page 9 2.2.1 refers ro "important" information - drop the word "important"


Sorry I have not got much done - I will continue on Monday. 

Steve