Issue 6585: Do we really need SDOSystemElement (issues) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: The meaning of the term might be completely unclear to 3rd party persons. Can we do without using this term? Do we really need SDOSystemElement? One of the reasons for having SDOSystemElement is to allow non-SDOs to participate in the Organisation. Is it correct? If so, then if we decide to get rid of the term non-sdo then probably we do not need SDOSystemElement as well. At least, the term ‘non-SDO’ should be changed. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 10, 2003: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 10 Nov 2003 19:53:05 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Ken-ichiroh Kawakami Company: Hitachi Ltd,. mailFrom: ken-ichi@sdl.hitachi.co.jp Notification: Yes Specification: PIM and PSM for SDO Section: PIM FormalNumber: dtc/03-09-01 Version: 03-09-01 RevisionDate: 03-09-03 Page: 2-7 Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) Description The meaning of the term might be completely unclear to 3rd party persons. Can we do without using this term? Do we really need SDOSystemElement? One of the reasons for having SDOSystemElement is to allow non-SDOs to participate in the Organisation. Is it correct? If so, then if we decide to get rid of the term non-sdo then probably we do not need SDOSystemElement as well. At least, the term ‘non-SDO’ should be changed.