RE: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review - Japanese Errata

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Patrick,

When I reviewed the errata document during its review period, I relied only
on information in that document.  I was unaware of any relationship to
comments received and, in particular, the Japanese Errata that had come in
some time ago.

So my review was strictly on my ability to apply the errata to the documents
and achieve an understandable result, the same as anyone would have to do
who would receive the errata document outside of the committee who was
unaware of the comments and other defect detections that led to the errata.

Since joining the TC, I have more information and I have seen the document
referred to as the Japanese Errata.  I have not referred to it at all, with
my additional review and discussion still being from the same principles.  I
understand that there have been comments about coverage of the Japanese
Errata in this errata document, but I had no way of knowing what the
intention was and whether any noticed omissions were accurate, intentional,
or inadvertent.  So I have not addressed that, nor did I address the items
that Murata-san and Michael worked through.

In some cases, I found an erratum to be inexplicable, and I wondered what
the reported defect actually was and what the rationale was for the fix.
Sometimes I suggested alternative resolutions because I did not know the
rationale was and what the discussion might have been (and my alternatives
have often missed what the original defect was claimed to be).

 - Dennis

PS: I believe it is unfortunate that a rationale is not provided with the
errata.  I think there should least be a key to whatever comments are
believed to be resolved by it.   It is very difficult to check those errata
items that are not obvious typographical errors in some cases.  It seems to
me that some sort of rationale should exist within the committee and be
referenced in the errata document or its transmittal, if that were possible,
for use in checking the errata and accountability for the resolution of
comments.  This notice should at least be provided during the review-comment
period.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00027.html
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 06:45
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review

Dennis,

Do you have a copy of the Japanese errata?

The reason I ask is that some of the "errors" you report in my numbering 
is the result of finding some "other" error than the ones reported by 
the Japanese defect report.

[ ... ]