Re: [uoml-x] Updated UOML Errata

[Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

First, I'd like to thank Joel for working through the ODT issues - I didn't realize that the errata was authored in Word and then a 'save as' operation was done to create an ODT file. The one thing I'm certain about after working with documents for 35 years is that there's no such thing as true compatibility between different applications; oftentimes there's no true compatibility between the same app/version on different platforms, or different versions of the same app. So I'm happy to be working with the editable source (which means exactly that - the file that you actually edited).

That said, I have now spent the better part of 2 days reviewing errata documents and they are still not accurate/complete/sufficient. It is a tremendous disappointment that although the BRM ended on 11 September that no errata document was submitted prior to late afternoon on the 21st - 10 days later. Given that the errata must be submitted for a 15-day public review which must be followed by the TC processing any comments received and then approving the errata, we are left with almost no time to process this.

There is no way the review can be announced today (23 Sept); if the errata does not address the issues below as well as address each of the NB comments in a referenceable way I do not know how I can approve the document for review. I must have these issues resolved or we must withdraw the submission since it is against our rules and our terms of submission when sent to JTC1 for the OASIS Standard and the approved JTC1 specification to have any differences between them. NOTE that these comments are against the document submitted this morning; I have not looked at any further updates. I must have an updated document will all corrections in place no later than 8am ET 24 September; otherwise we can't complete the OASIS process within the required timeframe.

I am most concerned with the corrections to the errata text, and the fact that there is no corresponding errata item for the schema changes. The cross-reference table (NB comment to errata item and vice versa) can follow later in the day.

Thank you,

Mary

-------

Changes required:

This will need to be changed to CD02 since it is to be re-approved.

This Version: be sure to list an html version as well. It's required.
The hypertext link behind the pdf is to the OS html file. It must match the actual prose URI

Latest Version: be sure to list an html version as well. It's required.

Changes to the Comments - 
in general there's a few occurrences of 'GE' rather than 'GB'
1. Summary
DE-29 is concerned with the API rather than the overall improvement of the specification and shouldn't be tied to #1. GE-07 should be GB-07. GB-31 is specifically related to error handling and shouldn't be tied to #1.

2. GB-40 is tied to restructuring of a specific clause rather than overall restructuring. NO-03 is related to Scope, not restructuring.

3. No NB comment associated with this item

4. position number - NO-06 was about Path, not position number. 

4. UOML - NL-02 was about Scope, not terminology.

6. NO-01 refers to overall quality, and specifically to background/requirements; DE-03 is also not related to Notational Conventions

7. Again, not sure how the comment submitted in DE-03 relates to this item. NL-04 maybe?

8. see 7

9. first comment: NO-10 is related to Scope. 

10. datatypes: doesn't seem related to CZ-05
schema: doesn't seem related to comment made by NO-17

16. GB-25 is related to section 2.2, not section 2.1

27. GB-21 is related to diagrams

48. Not sure that DE-16 applies

52. Not sure GB-25 applies

54. I don't think this addresses GB-34




Errata text:
Please include the section numbers in the text of the before/after headings; trying to guess what an appropriate section number was/will be is cumbersome and prone to error.

15. It's still unclear to me when it's changed and when it isn't. for instance, I've seen DoCbase, DOCBASE, etc. Each occurrence must be listed (line # references would work unless there's more than one occurrence on any given line)

17. move to where? the end of clause 2.1? the middle? after some text?

19. Do you mean that 2.1.1 becomes 4.1.1? How about move clauses 2.1.1 through 2.7? If it's only pieces, please make a paired list showing current/proposed numbers for each.

21. If the only places where this will be removed that haven't already been handled in other errata items are 2.1.3 and and clause 2.3 then that's all that should be mentioned here; otherwise it leaves the impression that there may still be some hanging out in other sections?

25. Font was already added in #20? Not sure of its applicability to GB-25

37. please list line numbers for all existing examples

38: please list line numbers for all existing examples

39: please list line number ranges.

40. title suggests that there are many more occurrences other than the 4 noted. If there are more, they must be listed; if this is it, please reword title.

46. not sure why this item exists since both references and clause 4 are included.

47. Bits other than cover page info cannot be updated as stages are approved - in other words, if you point to this reference it cannot be updated to another location. Instead, reference the location in the normative references portion.

51. I'm not sure what the intent of this item is; it has no actual changes.

52. This seems to refer to the same text as 50?

53. Not sure if the text below is the old text or the new text? both please.

54. Need specifics. A listing of existing line numbers or section numbers.

61. What happens to the existing text in 2.5.10? is this appended? replaced?

63. What happens to the existing text in 2.5.9? Is this appended? replaced?

64. What happens to existing text in 2.5.11?

65. see 61-64

68. see 61-64

69. see 61-64

71. see 61-64

72. see 61-64

73. see 61-64

74. see 61-64

75. are you renumbering the existing clause? moving the existing clause? changing the existing clause?

76. see 75

78. see 75

79. see 75

WHERE ARE THE SCHEMA CHANGES DEFINED in the ERRATA?
There can be no changes to the schema unless they are specifically called out in an errata item

The following errata items are not associated with any NB comment:
3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 67, 70, 78, 79

The following approved or partially approved NB comments are not associated with any errata item:
CZ-06, DE-02, DE-05, DE-21, DE-24, DE-28, DE-29, GB-08, GB-13, GB-14, GB-15, GB-19, GB-20, GB-21, GB-24, GB-25, GB-28, GB-31, GB-32, GB-34, GB-40, GB-42, GB-44, GB-48, GB-51, GB-57, JP-07, JP-08, NL-02, NO-03, NO-10, NO-12, NO-19






On Sep 23, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Joel Marcey wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Attached is the latest updated UOML Errata based on Mary McRae's feedback. I have also sent these directly to Mary for her to start her review. It is important that she begin her review now, even before the TC meeting. If Mary and the TC approves these, I will create a clean version (without comments) and we will upload these documents to OASIS.
> 
> I may make a few more changes to the errata before Mary has completed her review; if I do, I will add them to the end of the errata and send the update to Mary. She should not have to review the whole document again in this case.
> 
> Regards,
> Joel Marcey
> <UOML (Unstructured Operation Markup Language) Part 1 Version 1.0 Errata CD - Comments.doc><UOML (Unstructured Operation Markup Language) Part 1 Version 1.0 Errata CD - Comments.pdf>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php