Categories for Public Comment and Defect-Report Items

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

After working with the public comment register for a while, and adding another 100 public comment items, I began to use an expanded set of categories (beyond defect, no-defect, and editorial).

My current working list is as follows, lining up pretty well with the terms used in the SC34 defect report:

 * editorial - about wording or whether a non-normative statement should be a note or not, etc.

 * omission - something specific is missing (may be a particular kind of editorial problem)

 * incomplete - there is insufficient information to understand what a feature is and/or what is normative about it

 * inconsistent - statements that appear to be contradictory or not consistent with what appears elsewhere

 * unclear - a problem making sense of the statement in the specification

I've stopped using a no-defect category, although that can certainly be a disposition.  

These seem to be sufficient for all of the N1078 items that we should review for a disposition report back to SC34.  I have stopped using the simple category "defect."

There are some additional categories that arise, but not among the defect-report items:

 * proposal - a request for a feature or some specific suggestions about process or content

 * comment - an expression of opinion with nothing actionable presented

 * contribution - feedback of some kind, with suggestions, not (yet) classified further

 * objection - some exception taken to direction or existence of a provision, often quite general (e.g., proposals to put spreadsheets out of their misery) 

These are probably too many, but they seem helpful in understanding the general nature of a particular submission.  Of course, any applications of categories that I have used are only straw-men subject to the discussion and determination of the TC. 

 - Dennis

PS: There is one kind of comment that I have not found a satisfactory initial category for.  An example is many of the public comments from David King that suggest clarifications and corrected language around aspects of OpenFormula, as well as make questions.  I've been calling these contributions for lack of a better term that may arise out of closer screening.  

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org