Subject: renaming original dataflow

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:19:32 -0600 (MDT)

OCP calls application data flowing from OPES processor to callout
server "original". This term is used to describe both dataflow and
related OCP commands. The flow in the opposite direction is called
"adapted".

Several people were unhappy with the word "original" to describe the
concept. Lee Beaumont, an independent consultant reviewing OCP draft,
suggested a few alternatives:

	source, pristine, maiden, virgin,
	primal, prime, primary, prior,
	raw, initial, master, prototype, starting

From the above list, I like "virgin" the most. Any other opinions?
Does anybody think that "virgin dataflow" is better than current
"original dataflow"?

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:18:20 +0200

>         raw, initial, master, prototype, starting

"initial" seems the more internationaly sound.
And the nearest of "original" which is probably better (at least for French 
speakers)

I doubt "virigin" belongs to Basic English?

Also the word is to mean "the initial data in this OPES system", but not 
necessarily in other systems (OPES or not) so raw, master, prototype, 
source are probably inadequate?

Another problem are "virgin data" still virgin after having crossed an OPES 
system and stayed unaltered? Many people will ask because not nécessarily 
obvious?

>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/03

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:57:11 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, jfcm wrote:

> Another problem are "virgin data" still virgin after having crossed
> an OPES system and stayed unaltered? Many people will ask because
> not nécessarily obvious?

By OCP definition, any data that was processed (seen/touched) by a
callout server is "adapted", regardless of whether data bytes remained
unchanged. The idea is that just seeing (hence, possibly copying or
exporting) the data is sufficiently important to be traced/etc. In
other words, in OCP context, seeing data is as important as modifying
data.

Whatever word we choose, the problem you mention will persist, I
guess. The only solution may be to go back to "input/output"
terminology which I think we already rejected for other reasons.

Alex.

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:10:25 +0200

>other words, in OCP context, seeing data is as important as modifying

You are right.
The point is only is this. Are the two sentences intuitively clear
for every one.

"The virgin data adaptation left them unchanged"
"The original data adaptation left them unchanged".

The first one is not clear to me as "virigin" intuitively means
that nothing happened even leaving it unchanged.

Example: the "touch" command does not affect a file.
But a "touched" file for me is no more virgin.

Just semantic. But simplifies the thing when the words
intuitively translate well.

jfc

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:53:56 -0600 (MDT)

> that nothing happened even leaving it unchanged.

Both sentences are very confusing (grammatically, IMHO). A better
version might be:

"Adaptation of virgin data resulted in no changes to the data"
"Adaptation of original resulted in no changes to the data"

Both make sense and are clear enough to me.

The problem comes when we say

"Adapted data was not changed by the callout server"
"Adapted data and original data are identical"

Some would question: What was "adapted" then?

Alex.