RE: [codelist] Draft responses to 1st public review

This looks good to me. Only problem I saw was a typo on the third response bullet under 2.2 (looks like “not” should have been “note”).

Validation concerns expressed by Mr. Martin (2.3) are of interest to me. Ken helped introduce genericode and logic behind separate validation methodology (in this case using Schematron) to the ECF TC last week. The TC has not made any decisions regarding possible use of genericode in ECF specifications. However, there was concern expressed with benefits being outweighed by additional complexity. I’m not sure if this concern is because of the need for separate content validation, but it might be worth exploring the trade-offs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony B. Coates (Miley Watts) [mailto:abcoates@mileywatts.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:10 PM
To: Code List Representation TC
Subject: [codelist] Draft responses to 1st public review

I have drafted a document of responses to the comments from the 1st public

review.

PDF:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24873/Responses%20to%20First%20Public%20Review%20Comments%20on%20Code%20List%20Representation%20(genericode)%201.0.pdf

OpenDocument

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24874/Responses%20to%20First%20Public%20Review%20Comments%20on%20Code%20List%20Representation%20(genericode)%201.0.odt

MS Word:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24875/Responses%20to%20First%20Public%20Review%20Comments%20on%20Code%20List%20Representation%20(genericode)%201.0.doc

The URLs will almost certainly have been wrapped across two or more lines

by the time you read this. Please post any comments that you have on

these proposed responses to the TC list (not the comments list).

Cheers, Tony.