What's wrong with USS again? Confusion with VTAM's USS is unlikely, and neither would the Navy commissioning a new ship named USS Directory. The contexts are different.
Replacing a TLA with a half-line phrase isn't viable. One term that is inherently ambiguous is "zFS file". That naturally means a VSAM LDS that holds a USS file system; not USS files, which per se, do not care what type of file system they are contained in. My opinions, but I have no objections to others having different ones. sas On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:59 AM Timothy Sipples <sipp...@sg.ibm.com> wrote: > Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >Yes, but zFS is too specific, and at risk of change. > > Change cuts both/all ways. There's now at least one base z/OS component > that uses zFS nontrivially (and requires it) that isn't z/OS UNIX System > Services. > > How about something like this: "...a zFS or other z/OS UNIX compatible > directory/file/path..."? That'd allow for z/OS NFS, HFS (for now, in z/OS > releases that provide it), etc. if those are acceptable alternatives. > "z/OS UNIX" seems to be an acceptable short form of "z/OS UNIX System > Services," so I think that works. If for some reason the requirement is > specific to zFS, then it'd just collapse to "a zFS directory/file/path." > Here's another form, in between those two poles: > > "...a z/OS UNIX compatible directory/file/path (zFS recommended)..." > > Technical writing with clarity is hard, but I think these constructions > would be an improvement. > > - - - - - - - - - - > Timothy Sipples > I.T. Architect Executive > Digital Asset & Other Industry Solutions > IBM Z & LinuxONE > - - - - - - - - - - > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
