PAR scope and direction

Discuss the generic proposals for SJTAG
User avatar
Ian McIntosh
SJTAG Chair
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:49 pm
Location: Leonardo, UK

Re: PAR scope and direction

Post by Ian McIntosh »

Thanks Adam. "Transformations" still seems to be unexplained. Would it be better if the first enumerated point ended "... and of relevant data and protocol transformations"? (Is that a correct headline summary of what we mean by transformations?)
Ian McIntosh
Testability Lead
Leonardo UK
User avatar
Adam W Ley
SJTAG Established Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:35 pm
Location: ASSET InterTech, Inc./ USA

Re: PAR scope and direction

Post by Adam W Ley »

Ian McIntosh wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:48 pm "Transformations" still seems to be unexplained. Would it be better if the first enumerated point ended "... and of relevant data and protocol transformations"? (Is that a correct headline summary of what we mean by transformations?)
I would be quite happy with additional qualification of "transformations" and would not object to your construction of such should others deem it suitable = I added the qualifier "relevant" so that there would be some bounds on "transformations", but I didn't feel that I had enough engagement with the topic to suggest specific bounds (as you have done).