Subject: [dbound] Started on a glossary of terms for dbound

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:04:20 +0200

After the meeting yesterday, I started with a very skeletal set of terms
that need definition/explanation. Please feel free to dive in with
supporting details: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dbound/trac/wiki/Glossary

--Kurt Andersen

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:22:06 +0000

Kurt and all,

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:04:20 +0200

> supporting details: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dbound/trac/wiki/Glossary

Thanks!

The terms seem reasonable... except for "portability". I thought about
this yesterday during one of the presentations. "portability" has a lot
of meanings, none of which seem to map very well for "ability to use
offline as well as online".

I can't think of a single word to describe this, but perhaps something
like "connectivity sensitivity" or something like that? (It hurts my
brain when reading this, please someone think of something better!)

Cheers,

--
Shane

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:36:24 +0900

>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dbound/trac/wiki/Glossary

> brain when reading this, please someone think of something better!)

Sounds like it's going in the right direction, but shouldn't it be 
"connectivity insensitivity" (but this hurts even more). Or something 
like "offline usability" or "suitability for offline use". Or if we can 
let go of noun forms, just "suitable for offline use" or some such.

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:48:58 -0400

> offline as well as online".

While I verbally mentioned "ability to use offline as well as online" as an
example and important use case of portability, I didn't necessarily intend
it to be *the* definition of portability.  I don't think offline/online
should replace "portability", but it should be noted that this is merely
one example.  The more general question is: how well can this solution be
used by various applications of different types (e.g., browser, library,
mail server) on different computing platforms (e.g., laptop, phone,
embedded OS) in different network environments (e.g., online, offline,
private network, dial-on-demand), etc?

Casey

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:03:50 +0200

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Casey Deccio <[email-masked]> wrote:

> While I verbally mentioned "ability to use offline as well as online" as
> an example and important use case of portability, I didn't necessarily
> intend it to be *the* definition of portability.  I don't think
> offline/online should replace "portability", but it should be noted that
> this is merely one example.  The more general question is: how well can
> this solution be used by various applications of different types (e.g.,
> browser, library, mail server) on different computing platforms (e.g.,
> laptop, phone, embedded OS) in different network environments (e.g.,
> online, offline, private network, dial-on-demand), etc?
>
> Casey
>

This is sounding more along the lines of "suitable for limited
connectivity/capability situations and devices". Does that capture the idea
you are thinking of?

--Kurt

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:22:43 -0400

> connectivity/capability situations and devices". Does that capture the idea

How about if I turn the statement into a statement?

Versatility for use by various applications of different types (e.g.,
browser, library, mail server) on different computing platforms (e.g.,
laptop, phone, embedded OS) in different network environments (e.g.,
online, offline, private network, dial-on-demand), etc?

Casey

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:30:27 -0400

> How about if I turn the statement into a statement?

erg.  I meant "turn the question into a statement".

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:57:21 +0000

Casey,

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:22:43 -0400
> online, offline, private network, dial-on-demand), etc?

"Versatility" seems like a closer match than "portability" to what is
intended. It requires a bit more explanation, but at least it does not
make me think of incorrect things (probably I am too old, so to me
"portability" means going through various voodoo rituals to get your C
code to work in strange systems). :P

Cheers,

--
Shane