SM> FW: Suggestion for re-arranging the 2 State and Description table s

SM> FW: Suggestion for re-arranging the 2 State and Description table s

SM> FW: Suggestion for re-arranging the 2 State and Description table s

Zehler, Peter PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Mon Sep 30 07:45:40 EDT 2002


All,

Does anyone have any objection to this change?  I will add it to the agenda
for this week's telecon.

Pete

				Peter Zehler
				XEROX
				Xerox Architecture Center
				Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
				Voice:    (585) 265-8755
				FAX:      (585) 265-8871 
				US Mail: Peter Zehler
				        Xerox Corp.
				        800 Phillips Rd.
				        M/S 128-30E
				        Webster NY, 14580-9701


>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Hastings, Tom N  
> Sent:	Friday, September 27, 2002 7:28 PM
> To:	Zehler, Peter
> Cc:	Hastings, Tom
> Subject:	Suggestion for re-arranging the 2 State and Description
> tables
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I had a thought that would eliminate repeated attributes between:
> 
> a. the Job State and Description Attributes Table and 
> b. the Document State and Descriptions Attributes Table.  
> 
> At present there are a lot of duplicates between these two table.  How
> about re-arranging these two tables into the following two tables instead:
> 
> a. the Job and Document State Attributes Table and
> b. the Job and Document Description Attributes Table.
> 
> Then indicate with each attribute, whether its J, D, or J,D for Job versus
> Document.  
> 
> It would also make these two table be consistent with 
> 
> c. the Job and Document Processing Table.
> 
> and eliminate a lot of duplicate attributes, because a large number of
> attributes would have both J,D.  And the description would just say
> "Job/Document".
> 
> Also I never liked mixing State and Description attributes in the same
> table, since they are so fundamentally different.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
>  



More information about the Sm mailing list