[Oslc-Automation] Updates to Availability Spec

[John Arwe]

> (6) Rewrote the "Availabilty Specification Guidance" to give a better 
...
> ... Its hard for me as a non-native
> speaker to write in the "specification style".

1: It's nearly as hard for native speakers.
2: Most readers would consider this a feature, not a bug - they'll prefer 
readability.  Guidance is supposed to be read by humans, IMO, since (as we 
use the term in OSLC) it means "non-normative" which is just 
academic-speak for "it's not a spec".

Assumption: "most readers" are implementing clients.
Normative specs are typically written primarily for server implementers. 
The dynamics of that social system tends to lead toward a result that 
resembles a legal document more than normal text, because it's trying to 
impose a binary result (does my server comply or not) on the real world 
(which is rarely binary).  That's why "mere mortals" usually can't read 
specs easily.  Well, that along with "compliance != usefulness", where != 
is the "not always equal" operator. 

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140821/ff700dbc/attachment-0003.html>