"A.R. (Tom) Peters" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Nathan Wallwork wrote:
>
> > > Consensus Point VIII: Jargon
> > >
> > > The Linux Professional Institute will not explicitly test on knowledge of
> > > jargon and acronyms. The examinees are supposed to be familiar with
> > > concepts that have a commonly used acronym for a name (e.g. TCP/IP) but
> > > the actual meaning of the letters will not be asked for. The tests will
> > > be developed to be free of jargon, abbreviations and acronyms where
> > > possible.
> >
> > Is that wise? Do we really want to say we will write
> > "Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol" everywhere we might
> > otherwise have used "TCP/IP"?
>
> No, that is not my intention and I thought it says so in the text of the
> consensus point. If this is unclear, please suggest another formulation.
>
I think the term "commonly used" begs the question of what is common and
for whom (the legal "reasonable man" argument). It also doesn't help
that many examinees will likely have a MS background and be confused
with MS' redefinition of common terms (such as domain) when it suits
their purpose (which I've often believed to be to deliberately confuse).
Any acronym used must be defined at the first usage or found in a LPI
published lexicon (publicly available). Everyone on this list at some
time had to learn the unix vernacular. This must be known in advance so
we are testing on objectives (and giving trainers the opportunity to
ensure students understand the acronyms). I felt that Tom's consensus
point adequately articulated that stance, but perhaps not (in which case
perhaps someone else would like to take a stab at a rewrite?).
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
