-----Original Message-----
From: A.R. (Tom) Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Call for dictionary
>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
>
> I think this does not solve the issue that was originally raised: what
>words and acronyms are so common that we may use them and expect them to
>be known. I still think we need to have a definitive list of them, with
>or without explanation.
I think this is not a good idea (at least not for controlling test quality)
because a list too long and filed with too many no-brainer terms will not be
read.
But we can do it your way, more inclusive is easier.
>> As I described in my previous message, I would just list two fields, the
>> preferred term and alternate terms. Would a definition be helpful
(helpful
>> enough to justify the trouble)?
>
> Yes. Like Michael jang pointed out, the meaning of jargon tends to get
>confused, especially between MS and Unix. So in some cases we need to
>have a definition or at least a description of the concepts and words we
>will be using. Just offering synomyms (which may not exist for things
>with an acronym) will not be enough.
So, here's my example again. What's wrong with, say, the DNS entry? Please
be explicit otherwise the finished product won't be what you have in mind.
Preferred : Alternatives
account: a login, a screen name, a passwd entry
CPU unit: [box that holds the] CPU, box, main unit, processing unit
DNS: domain name server, ip address resolution, name resolution
network interface card : NIC, LAN adapter, ethernet card, ne2000 clone
> This seems like a good idea, so please go ahead. But mind that the
>stated goal was, to avoid jargon and abbreviations as much as reasonably
>possible. It is not clear to me if you think we should not bother to
>follow such a policy.
You mean do I agree with your concensus point? Sure! (Who has disagreed?)
Or if you mean, Do I know what to write (besides the exact wording of the
point) in the item writing guidelines? No.
For example, do item writers have to spell out Transmision Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol instead of TCP/IP (no, we already decided not, it
would be dumb because TCP/IP is universally known while I had to look up its
meaning just now). So do item writers have to spell out Domain Name
Service? I'm guessing NO. So do they have to write out Network Interface
Card (i.e., vs. NIC)? I'm guessing yes.
The "I'm guessing" part is a little disquieting to me. If we leave it up to
the item writers, then we have abandoned quality control.
But I agree completely that this is a Linux test, not a acronym/jargon test.
>> This would provide consistency across exams because any terms that we
>> include on Exam 1 get carried to Exam 2. New stuff for Exam 2 (if any)
is
>> added and carried to Exam 3. And so forth. It also seems more workable
>> than writing an exhaustive list right away.
>
> Note that the first level has 2 exams, which will be developed shortly
>after one another. The second exam contains a distribution-specific part,
>which is still under development.
Yes.... But I'm not sure I take your point?
-Alan
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
