A scheme simple over Spec(A)?

What does it mean to say that a scheme $X$ is simple over $Spec(A)$ ?

I stumbled on this terminology in a paper of S. Lubkin entitled "On a conjecture of Andre Weil".

-
"Simple" means "smooth" in this context. – ulrich Apr 15 2012 at 14:22
From the Introduction in SGA1: "/.../ et de faire un ajustage terminologique, le mot \og morphisme simple\fg ayant notamment \'et\'e remplac\'e entre-temps par celui de \og morphisme lisse\fg, qui ne pr\^ete pas aux m\^emes confusions." – A Stasinski Apr 15 2012 at 15:11
Ok thanks for the explanation. – Hugo Chapdelaine Apr 15 2012 at 16:56
Why not post this as an answer? – Martin Brandenburg Apr 15 2012 at 19:43
This question just floated back to the surface; it would be good if somebody wrote up A Stasinski's comment as an answer, to stop that happening repeatedly. – Artie Prendergast-Smith May 14 2012 at 20:39

I have copied A. Stasinsky's comment who quoted a passage in the introduction of SGA1:

"/.../ et de faire un ajustage terminologique, le mot morphisme simple ayant notamment \'et\'e remplac\'e entre-temps par celui de morphisme lisse, qui ne pr\^ete pas aux m\^emes confusions."

-

Because a scheme is a locally ringed space X, then it is simple if its topology does not contain a nontrivial two sided ideal. As Spec(A) is referring to the spectrum, this scheme is simple if the set of all proper prime ideals of the noncommutative ring A does not contain any nontrivial two sided ideals defined by x $\cdot$ r $\in$ I, r $\cdot$ x $\in$ I, if the set of ideals (I,+) is a subgroup of an additive group (R,+). In a commutative ring, this is true for all ideals in I.

-
As explained in the above comments, "simple" meant something else in this context. This other usage is, however, largely obsolete. – Donu Arapura Apr 15 2012 at 15:20
I meant "simple=smooth" is obsolete. – Donu Arapura Apr 15 2012 at 15:21