| RE: [epf-dev] Self referencing Presentation Name in content? |
|
Hi Brian, The examples the Plug-in Development Guide
gives for the Brief Description fields are usually in the form of “This
role…” or “This task…” The purpose of having the
guidelines generically self-reference the element is to address the problem you
described. - Jim ____________________ Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational RUP Content Developer Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer email: jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx phone: 760.505.3232 fax:
949.369.0720 From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of "Brian Lyons"
<blyons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> hiho, I was just working on the detail for the Developer role and
I was looking at other roles for some examples of style. I think I am
seeing a specific issue that then becomes a general one. The Skills section of the Project Manager role Brief
Description starts with “The Project Manager role plans…” and
the skills section starts with “A person performing the Project Manager
role needs…”. This sort of self-referencing text is not
uncommon. But I think that process engineers might want to create
elements that rename our OpenUP/Basic elements by Extending them and changing
the name. This is a problem if the name is referenced in the body of the
text. Should we avoid referencing the name of the process element
in the body of it? All the examples I am finding could be changed into
things like “This role plans…” or “A person performing
this role needs…”. Let me know if I am off base here. If we decide to do this, we should probably have Ricardo
Balduino change the Brief Descriptions for ease of CM.
--------------- b _______________________________________________ |