Issue 4994: Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14 (uml-scheduling-ftf)
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14.  This RFP response uses the phrase “required QoS” for identifying the QoS a client demands from a resource.  To me, the word “required” implies an “all or nothing” response which I do not think is the right connotation if these QoS values are to be used at run time as well as during analysis.  I believe that eventually we will want auto-generated software embedded with these QoS values where the values are exposed and acted upon by the run time infrastructure.  In this case, clients may get less than optimal resource service.  Recommend the phase “required QoS” be replaced with “desired QoS”.   This phrase is used throughout the RFP response.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue
Discussion: 
This is a question of taste; Tom has a point (although in some cases "desired = required"), but I am not sure that it is worth the bother of changing this throughout the document. I will probably reject this one (Bran)

End of Annotations:=====
This is issue # 4994

Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14

Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14.  This RFP response uses
the otation if these QoS values are to be used at run time as well as
during analysis.  I believe that eventually we will want
auto-generated software embedded with these QoS values where the
values are exposed and acted upon by the run time infrastructure.  In
this case, clients may get less than optimal resource service.
Recommend the phase phrase