Re: [regrep] RIMv2.6 Review, Sections 6-7

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for all these wonderful comments on RIM 2.6 and my apologies for 
the delayed reaction.
I accept all your comments as bugs in version ebRIM 2.6 and have fixed 
all of these comments as well as
the previous set of comments you had sent with the following exceptions:

[1200] ...

I agree with your concern here with names like gasGuzzlersInc, 
yourDadsCarInc, bigBadAutoInc and yuppyEuroAutoInc
being potentially offensive to someone.

This section use to use names like Ford, GM, Chrysler and BMW but then 
people wanted to not have specific company names.
So I resorted to the thinly veiled references. I personally think using 
Company names is fine if it helps clarify the example (which
I believe it does if we used company names as original version did).

So I propose using real names like Ford, GM, Chrysler and BMW again. If 
any one objects then they should also make
suggestions on what may be a better alternative. Thanks.

Thanks again for the very thoughtful comments.

I am planning to have the regrep-rim-3.0-draft-01 and 
regrep-rs-3.0-draft-01 published to TC docs tree by early January so we 
can begin
continue the next iteration of TC review. Thanks.

Merry Christmas, happy holidays and all the best to my dear regrep 
colleagues for the new year.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh



PMACIAS@lmi.org wrote:

>I found one I missed earlier on Figure 2.  The rest of the comments cover Sections 6 & 7.
>Have a good weekend everyone!
>-Paul
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>[583] Figure 2 note attached to "RegistryObject" has spelling/truncation error in the forth line for "independent".
>
>[1117, 1129] - Following convention, put quotes around letter (a) to result in: ...Association "a"...
>
>[1130] - Following convention, capitalize association to result in: ...Association "a"...
>
>[1159] - Association attribute summary includes attributes for "isConfirmedBySourceOwner" and "isConfirmedByTargetOwner" that should be deleted.
>
>[1167] - Starts off, "The following table lists canonical association types".  However, there is no table.  Believe the sentence should be removed, and the next sentence changed from, "These canonical association types..." to, "The canonical association types...".
>
>[1177] - Insert before the method summary table a subsection "6.6.5 Method Summary
>In addition to its attributes, the Association class also defines the following methods."
>
>[1200] - Sorry if this comment seems overly sensitive. But while I get a kick out of the CPP names in figure 8, I want to make sure we don't draw unnecessary negative reactions from a supportive industry.  Sally, I'm sure automotive types have a good sense of humor and can find humor in industry caricatures, but is there any chance that someone could take umbrage with the figure?  Particularly, "gasGuzzlerInc" and "yuppyEuroAutoInc"?
>
>[1211] - This might just be a display issue, but in Figure 9, the "ClassificationNode" relationship for "parent" should be "0..1".
>
>[1229, 1272, 1351 & 1367] - Change from use of "Super Classes" in Sections 5 and 6, to "Base classes".  I recommend we stay consistent with "Super Classes".
>
>[1260] - Change the sentence from, "This following canonical..." to, "The following canonical...".
>
>  
>