[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [icom] Proofing comments
Hi and a Happy New Year to all! I created a page in the ICOM wiki, for the comments, to keep them centralized: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/icom/DraftSpecComments Patrick, I started adding the ones in your email as well, so that will be taken care of (soon). Have a nice weekend! Laura On Wednesday 21 December 2011 16:09:32 Patrick Durusau wrote: > Greetings! > > Reading from back to front: > > Page, line number, comment > > 209, 7265, Empty section "B. Non-Normative Text" > > 207, 7244, voice, revise - Suggest: lose ", but any which are consumed > must conform to this standard." -Redundant. To be an ICOM object it has > to conform to the standard. Implementations can consume non-ICOM objects > so this isn't well-founded. > > > 207, 7238, end line with colon ":" > > 207, 7233, end line with colon ":" > > 207, 7229-7230 - remove: " , but any which are produced to be managed by > an ICOM service provider, must conform to this standard. " > - already defined as ICOM objects - > > 207, 7214-7215 - Why examples of optional statements? Aren't these > marked as optional in Section 4? In other words, why say "optional" here? > > 207, 7211-7212 - Why examples of optional statements? Aren't these > marked as optional in Section 3? In other words, why say "optional" here? > > 207, 7208-7209 - wording, suggest: "An ICOM environment may include > multiple service providers, each of which provides different subsets of > extension modules." > > 206, 7205 - wording, suggest: "for classes and super classes defined by > such extension module. > > 206, 7202, end line with colon ":" > > 206, 7190, end line with colon ":" > > 206, 7186, end line with colon ":" > > 206, 7183, We say "by use case roles" here but never mention them in the > following clauses? BTW, conformance is defined by this standard. > > 206, 7177, "to be managed by" -> "managed by" > > 206, 7170, "is defined in terms of the..." -> "is defined using..." > > 205 - We do define "Multi," "Read Write," "True," "False" at some point. > Yes? > > 205, 7156, icom_meta:property is a call back to line 2204 - 3.6.2 Property > > Probably not worth the effort at this point but better hyperlinking in a > future version between references and their definitions would be good. > > 205, 7133, "sign on keys" -> "keys" ("sign on" may or may not describe > activation of a role setting. It is just a key.) > > 204, 7102, "is defined by" -> has the attribute values: > > 204, 7100, "contains roles for a conference." -> defines role settings > for conference participants." > > 203, 7056, "is defined by" -> has the attribute values: > > 203, 7047-7050, I would delete: "to express that" and leave "a > conference session ended after the host left" and similar revisions on > the following lines. > > Sorry I did not pick this up in time to finish for this meeting. Will > complete by the next ICOM meeting. > > Hope everyone is having a great day! > > Patrick > > PS: Talk you to soon, breaking to eat lunch early! ;-)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]