[evla-sw-discuss] Terminology
Boyd Waters
bwaters+moz at nrao.edu
Mon Oct 27 17:01:28 EST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Ryan wrote:
| It is in agreement with the correlator folk and also refers to
| them as 'alerts' -- probably because not all alerts are necessarily
| alarms (i.e. alarms are subsets of alerts).
Sorry... but does this mean that "alarms" are "critical alerts"?
With the (proposed) four types of alerts --- failure, error, warning,
and informational -- there is a priority that seems implied. It's a bit
confusing, though.
What are we trying to capture here: a notion of urgency? Amount of
operator intervention required? Amount of potential observation time lost?
"information" - requires no action
"warning" - potential down-stream problems, but proceeding
"failure" - problems, can't continue
"warning" and "failure", as listed above, seem both to be "errors":
"error" - something unexpected
All of these four tags seems to be associated with an *event* -- the
system may respond by issuing an *alert* via some notification process.
We may stick to the convention of calling "alarms" a notification
process that involves red lights, noise, and electrical shocks to the
operator. That anyway is expected to attract the immediate attention of
an intervening agency.
If I understand corectly, then we want to aviod saying "alarm" because
our usage of "alert" is exactly that - a notification process that
expects a response from someone/thing.
I don't know if it is worthwhile to distinguish between an *alert* and
its generating *event*, but I suspect it may be so.
~ - boyd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/nZW40is8k1r0QeURAojpAJ4oBAb3d4Edmw7YrKlPdgIT9F/bswCfcL4o
6FdaeAR0iNqlnhRNI3JTFEY=
=I451
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the evla-sw-discuss
mailing list