The cover page is the first thing a newcomer sees of the standard/specification and must therefor be informative and intuative. Besides the specific comments a general work-through is needed.
Is the color of the chapter headings correct?
A number of new page brakes would make the (pdf) cover page easier to read.
When looking at other OASIS specifications, most of them have different layouts and styles, so this is apperantly not to strongly enforced...
The current name of the committee draft/specification (Product Life Cycle Support DEXs Version R1) could be better...
- It's not only DEXs beeing standardized and the name is therefore misleading. A better name could be "DEXpub" to be read as "DEX publication package".
- The "Version R1" section should either be "Release 1" or "Version 1" or "Version 1.0"
Are these all relevant namespaces? What about "urn:plcs:rdl:std"? Are there more?
The text and link to the non-normative errata page "The non-normative errata page for this specification is located at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php?wg_abbrev=plcs " leads to the PLCS TC public documents folder. An errata file in here will be hard to find without knowing its filename.
The t.o.c. has a numbering style that is not used in the chapters below, e.g. "1.0" instead of "1".
The t.o.c. has no direct link to Reference Data or to the PLCS Help and Information Pages. Wouldn't this be useful as the are listed as thing being standardized in this release.
The first paragraph has a reference to "OASIS Product Lifecycle Support (PLCS) standard". "OASIS" should be replaced by "ISO". The introduction must be very clear about the naming and separation of the different existing and up-coming standards.
The "standard" or "committee specification" (how should it be adressed?) is referenced to/named as both "OASIS PLCS DEXs Version R1" and "OASIS PLCS DEXs ed. 2008:1". A name must be set. With "DEXs" being used as the name of the complete published/standardised package, a reference to the concept of DEXs (Data Exchange Specifications) is made harder or confusing. Se also comments about title and subtitle namings. The ISO PLCS standard and its parts are also referenced differently in the text...
Are the keywords spacified by RFC 2119 used in the specified way within this commitee specification. If not, the RFC should not be referernced.
The name of the DEX should be shown in the navigation bar e.g. 'Task specification', now the identifier e.g. 'task_specification' is shown (see D003 for more on this).
DEXlib has the functionality to link terms to the definitions in the terminology section. Shouldn't this possibility be used in the DEXs, e.g to link "ICAM" in the AAM section of the DEXs to its definition.
Abstact section - first paragraph - last sentence: The boileplate text "The DEX represented information such as" would better read "This DEX specifies how to represent information such as".
Introduction section - Title: "Introduction" should be changed to "Introduction to DEXs and PLCS"
Introduction section - first paragraph - first sentence: This is the specification not a "specification for the ... specification". Sentence needs to be rephrased into e.g. "This is the xxx xxx Data Exchange Specification (DEX)".
Introduction section - first paragraph - second sentence: "A DEX specification..." should either be "A DEX..." or "A Data Exchange Specification...". The current text actually says "A Data Exchange Specification specification".
Introduction section - first paragraph: Is the described STEP objective true? "The objective of ISO 10303 is to provide a neutral mechanism capable of describing products throughout their life cycle"
Introduction section - second paragraph: The sentence "... what information can be exchanged and represented to support..." shouls change to "... what information is needed to support..."
Introduction section: The text in the first section is repeated by the bullet list below. A complete reoganization is suggested. Look at the modified D003 introduction file included in this review package for an example.
Related DEXs section: The boilerplate text that describes the related DEXs all uses aircraft as the only exanple of use. This need to be extended. Bothe DEXs also relate to DEXs not yet published as committee specifications or standards. This need to be explained and managed in some way.
Structure of the DEX section: the fifth bullet should remove the bold italic undelined term "business" in this quotation; "Business information overview provides a high level overview of the business information that can be represented by this DEX;"
Supporting material section: Suggest boilerplate text change to "Further information about DEXs, and technical details on how they are structured can be found in the PLCS Help and Information Pages". A reference to DEXlib is confusing. A reference to the published package "DEXpub" is possible but not needed.
Instead of writing "For the purpose of this document the following terms apply", I suggest "For the purpose of this DEX the following terms apply" or "For the purpose of this specification the following terms apply". The term "document" seems a bit misplaced.
A link to the 'Terminology' section of DEXlib at the the end of the Terms page could be useful if a user needs to understan terminology not specific to the DEX.
Boilerplate text both for the "within" and the "outside" scope statements are incorrect. "Data EXchange Set" (DEX)" should be "Data Exchange Specification (DEX)"
D011 uses "reportable item" and D003 uses "supported item"
Note: The correctness of the defined scope has not been reviewed or evaluated!
A suggestion for new text for the first section is in the file "DEX xxx - AAM.odt".
The first sentence of the 'Activity definitions' section; "The following terms are used to label activities:" should be replaced by something like; "The activity labels in the AAM model views above have the following definitions:"
The 'ICOM definitions' section; The term (abbreviation) ICOM needs to be explained or text rewritten.
The 'ICOM definitions' section; The first sentence "The following terms are used to label ICOM arrows:" should be replaced by something like; "The ICOM arrow labels in the AAM model views above have the following definitions:"
The actual definitions or the correlation with the included figures have not been reviewed!
The name of this DEX should be "Operational feedback" and the content should be adopted to this more general scope. Publishing a DEX with this name is not in the interest of the TC! Shall we later publish a "Ship maintenance" and a "Vehicle maintenance" DEX...?!
The term "reportable item" is used. Is this a well known term. Isn't the term "xxx candidate" used in mil-std 1388 a better and more general term? D003 uses "supported item" for a similar/identical concept. Se also the section discussing the scope statements (Commom to both DEXs -> Scope).
Further comments are for some sections included in an attached document containing a copy of the section, accessable using the provided link.
Three issues are displayed in the beginning of the scope page and should be removed.
"Aircraft" is used instead of a more generalized term.
The only activity yellow marked in the figure is "collect data and provide feedback", but also "Analyze support feedback" and "Extract and collate information" are described in the 'Activity definitions' section.
The term APSI is not a ICOM arrow and should not be in the definitions section. Possibly included in the terms section?!
The definition for the ICOM arrow "authorized task" is not included in the definitions section of the page but marked yellow in one of the figures.
The definition for the ICOM arrow "maintenance need" is not included in the definitions section of the page but marked yellow in one of the figures.
The name of this DEX would better be "Task" or "Task description", while the DEX itself is a specification (this comment is weak compared to the comment to the DEX 011 naming). FMV reccomend "Task". If D011 followed this naming it would be called "Aviation Maintenance Specification".
The identifier of the DEX is "task_set", The name of the DEX in the introduction is "Task Specification". D011 refers to the DEX as "Information related to a single task" (boilerplate inclusion). The naming needs sorting out
Further comments are for some sections included in an attached document containing a copy of the section, accessable using the provided link.
In the "Introduction to the Task Specification DEX", in the last 'Note', the phrase "a single message" is used. Should there be a reference to the representing message template or to the message capability (when completed)?
the bullets need to be more descriptive in their wordings. One example is "task trigger (..examples...)" with no further text. A possibly better (at least more descriptive) text could be "Description of triggers (...examples...) that initiates the execution of a task". Most others need similar work.
How will we avoid getting comments to earlier approved parts of the standard when we release new DEXs, Reference Data or even perhaps only additional content in the Help & Info? Are links from the cover page to new components enough? Or is it perhaps a good thing to allow comments to the complete package at every release?!
The 'Terminology' section doesn't have a start page explaining it's use or content. Such a page would be better to load when the 'Terminology' field in the nav bar is clicked. From this page one could then chose to load the t.o.c. to the left pane. I actually clicked the link three times without noticing that the index appeared to the left. I thought something was wrong...