| P-Member |
APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT AS PRESENTED |
APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT WITH COMMENTS AS GIVEN ON THE ATTACHED |
DISAPPROVAL OF THE DRAFT FOR REASONS ON THE ATTACHED |
DISAPPROVAL (appropriate changes in the text will change vote to APPROVAL) |
ABSTENTION (For Reasons Below) |
NO RESPONSE |
| Canada |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| China |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Italy |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Japan |
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
| Korea, Republic of |
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
| Netherlands |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Norway |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thailand |
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
| United Kingdom |
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
| USA |
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
| O-member (for comment only)
|
| Romania |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Technical
- (1.1) Clause 4.1 Validation Semantics, 2nd paragraph, last sentence
-
The "localized configuration" should be clarified.
- (1.2) Clause 4.2.4 Subtype Schema Item, 1st paragraph
-
The "subtype relationship" should be clarified.
- (1.3) Clause 4.3 Interpretation of TMCL-Schema
-
The "Interpretation of TMCL-Schema" should be clarified.
2. Editorial
- (2.1) Clause 4.2.1 Topic Map Schema item, 2nd paragraph
-
"Topic schemas consist of ... "
should be
"Topic map schema consist of ... ".
- (2.2) Clause 4.2.1 Topic Map Schema item
-
The "TopicMapSchema" should be "Topic Map Schema".
- (2.3) Clause 4.3.7.1 - 4.3.7.5
-
Those clause titles should be
- OtherRoleCardMinConstraint,
- OtherRoleCardMaxConstraint,
- OtherRoleAllPlayersFromConstraint,
- OtherRoleOneOfConstraint and
- OtherRoleIsUniqueConstraint
respectively.
- (2.4) Clause 4.3.8.3 RoleAllPlayersFromConstraint
-
In the expression of the "RoleAllPlayersFromConstraint interpretaion",
some lines are missing after the "every" line.
- (2.5) Clause 4.3.8.4 RoleOneOfConstraint
-
In the expression of the "RoleOneOfConstraint interpretaion",
some lines are missing after the "every" line.
- (2.6) Clause 4.5.1 ConflictItem
-
In the list of ConflictItem, there is "RoleIsUniqueConflictItem" (last line), but there is no corresponding Constraint in
the contents and clause 4.3.8.
(1) TMCL-Rule is too much underspecified to approve. TMCL-Rule may be dropped in this document to be pursued in the next
phase.
(2) The document needs proof-reading to correct many grammatical errors and some figures are missing.
(3) TMCL was discussed in the Atlanta meeting, 2005, to revise the specification and thus the next revised one is the one
to be considered for the approval.
Comments attached in UK-Comments-On-CD-19756.pdf.
The US vote is No, with comments:
Sections 3.1 Notation and Syntax, 3.2 Informal and Formal Semantics, 4.6 Syntax for TMCL-Schema, 4.7 Syntax for TMCL-Rule,
4.8 Combining TMCL-Rule and TMCL-Schema, and 4.9 Topic Map Representation of Constraints, have not been completed.
Further more, there are sixteen helpful and useful comments from one of the editors (Graham Moore) that indicate substantive
changes that may or may not be made in the draft.
For example:
4.2.7 Topic Name Schema Item
3 [scopeSelector] An ScopePattern item. Names whose scope match this pattern must adhere to the topic name constraint. [gdm
- not sure this is on the right of the 80/20 rule. I would prefer scope to be a constraint.
4 [variantSchema}: A set of Variant Schema items. Names whose scope match this pattern must adhere to the topic name constraint.
[gdm - not sure this is on the right side of the 80/20 rule. I would prefer scope to be a constraint.
While the parts of the draft that are present are quite impressive, there are substantive sections that are missing or that
may undergo substantive revision.
