Dave,
I think that I am okay with that suggested change. I am a little bit worried about using the word "measure" as it can be taken to imply things that we really do not want to address (e.g., a means to measure and a quantifiable scale for measurement). I thought about suggesting changing "A measure" to "An indication" but that seems just a bit too vague to me. I don't have a better suggestion right now.
Allen Luniewski
IBM Cross Brand Services
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
555 Bailey Ave.
San Jose, CA 95141
408-463-2255
408-930-1844 (mobile)
"Dave Berry" <daveb@nesc.ac.uk>
"Dave Berry" <daveb@nesc.ac.uk>
Sent by: ogsa-d-wg-bounces@ogf.org
10/08/2007 02:11 PM
|
|
Jem queried our definition of data consistency, which is currently:
| A policy that specifies or describes how up-to-date an instance of data is in one service of a distributed system, with respect to one or more instances of that data elsewhere in the system. |
Jem said (in e-mail):
my thought was that data consistency would be a state of the data - it's consistent w.r.t. some other set of data or it isn't; the policy would be the rules that determine whether it is, and what the requirements are.
I've had a look through our document and I agree. We refer to data consistency policies but also to data consistency requirements, mechanisms and strategies.
So, how about this as a revised definntion:
"A measure of how up-to-date an instance of data is in one service of a distributed system, with respect to one or more instances of that data elsewhere in the system."
Best wishes,
Dave Berry
Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development
National e-Science Centre
15 South College Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9AA
+44 131 651 4039 www.nesc.ac.uk
--
ogsa-d-wg mailing list
ogsa-d-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-d-wg