RE: [regrep] RIMv2.6 Review, Sections 6-7

[<PMACIAS@lmi.org>]

Ack.  Why do I always catch my flubs after pressing the send button?  Ninth comment should read:

[1229, 1272, 1351 & 1367] - Section 7 changed from the convention of "Super Classes" used in Sections 5 and 6, to "Base classes".  I recommend we stay consistent with "Super Classes".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PMACIAS@lmi.org [mailto:PMACIAS@lmi.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 3:10 PM
> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [regrep] RIMv2.6 Review, Sections 6-7
> 
> 
> I found one I missed earlier on Figure 2.  The rest of the 
> comments cover Sections 6 & 7.
> Have a good weekend everyone!
> -Paul
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> [583] Figure 2 note attached to "RegistryObject" has 
> spelling/truncation error in the forth line for "independent".
> 
> [1117, 1129] - Following convention, put quotes around letter 
> (a) to result in: ...Association "a"...
> 
> [1130] - Following convention, capitalize association to 
> result in: ...Association "a"...
> 
> [1159] - Association attribute summary includes attributes 
> for "isConfirmedBySourceOwner" and "isConfirmedByTargetOwner" 
> that should be deleted.
> 
> [1167] - Starts off, "The following table lists canonical 
> association types".  However, there is no table.  Believe the 
> sentence should be removed, and the next sentence changed 
> from, "These canonical association types..." to, "The 
> canonical association types...".
> 
> [1177] - Insert before the method summary table a subsection 
> "6.6.5 Method Summary
> In addition to its attributes, the Association class also 
> defines the following methods."
> 
> [1200] - Sorry if this comment seems overly sensitive. But 
> while I get a kick out of the CPP names in figure 8, I want 
> to make sure we don't draw unnecessary negative reactions 
> from a supportive industry.  Sally, I'm sure automotive types 
> have a good sense of humor and can find humor in industry 
> caricatures, but is there any chance that someone could take 
> umbrage with the figure?  Particularly, "gasGuzzlerInc" and 
> "yuppyEuroAutoInc"?
> 
> [1211] - This might just be a display issue, but in Figure 9, 
> the "ClassificationNode" relationship for "parent" should be "0..1".
> 
> [1229, 1272, 1351 & 1367] - Change from use of "Super 
> Classes" in Sections 5 and 6, to "Base classes".  I recommend 
> we stay consistent with "Super Classes".
> 
> [1260] - Change the sentence from, "This following 
> canonical..." to, "The following canonical...".
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> 
>