Re: Review of CIQ Specifications?

[colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz]

Ram

Yes, I looked through in more detail in the weekend, although as you know there has been a reasonable amount of contact with us in the NZ Govt re this.

It is a great piece of work and assuming the approach to genericode is stable and works as specified then this is clearly a great step forward. We won't have the capacity to do that validation before I can be advised on the outcome and therefore undertake my TC vote by the deadline with the confidence I would ideally like, but we should have it done before the end of the Public Review.

Small issues I picked up were:

1) Package Overview:

Line 174 Table:  spelling of their (hier) Consistency in clvv/prepare: "this file is modifiable by the user and should be executed if any changes are done to it" seems the best sentence of the  3 forms this sentence takes. "Require modifications" not "requires". Remove "to be" before NOT modified".
Line 187-188: Maybe give the url/urn links for these?
Lines 227 and 240: Maybe define "works fine" more precisely? Produce no errors?

2) Technical Overview:
This is substantially the same as before but suggest Section 2.2, lines 36 - 40 "what is in scope in this version" could benefit from  a mention of xLink and genericode.
2.14 Geo-coordinates: As you know Ram, we have proposed that the spec specifies geospatial much tighter than shown here and elsewhere in the specs.

Cheers
Colin