<! date> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:30:36 -0800
[Responding to Adam Cheyer's letter earlier today... ]
It's a sign of the fact that the terms have never been defined, I think, that I have never conceived of the OHS as a toolset, while you clearly have.
I have always seen the OHS as some sort of repository. That is not necessarily the most ideal or the most useful vision -- its just the one I have always had.
You, on the other hand, have a very different vision, that appears to be based on documents I am unfamiliar with. At least, I don't recall seeing anything that described things in that way.
Apparently, you are of a school that sees the OHS as thing that looks into the DKR? I've heard others talking in that fashion, but have never understood that particular view of things.
I agree that consistent terminology is necessary. At Tuesday's meeting, we consistently referred to the OHS as though it were a repository with a functional interface, and no one seemed to be adverse to that label.
I think the design makes sense, regardless of what we label the components, but I agree that consistent labeling is desirable.
<! close> Sincerely,