Subject: RIM 3.0 Comments (Cure for Cabin Fever?)
Here are some comments on RIM 3.0, version "Working Draft 01, 04 January, 2005" (which I believe is still the
latest version that has been distributed to the TC). Apologies if any have already been offered by others. I've also
placed a general category in ()'s after each line, for prioritization - so items that have the word "meaning" or
"accuracy" in their category may be considered higher priority than - for example - those labeled "Readbility":
- Line 363 (Readability): Expand SAML V2.0 “ECP” abbreviation
Line 363 (Readability):
- Line 367 (Grammar): “Instances of such content…” – change to “Instances of such content are referred to as RepositoryItems"
- Line 369 (Concept meaning): “Standardized metadata” – do we mean the metadata MODEL itself, or the contents? I believe we mean the model, which is the RIM. The contents (e.g. format of RegistryObject description values) may or may not be standardized, depending on an organization’s usage. Applies also to line 384.
- Line 370 (Grammar): “Instances of such metdata…” – change to “Instances of such metadata are referred to as RegistryObjects"
- Line 372 (Spelling): Metaphore is misspelled
- Line 388 (Grammar): “within a canonical” – remove “a”
- Line 396 (Readability): Recommend considering adding a short description of each classification scheme (e.g. “Defines normative Association values…”). Also, shouldn’t this table be labeled?
- Line 406 (Readability): Recommend citing one example here of a composed object (e.g. a Classification instance)
- Line 415 (Readability): Recommend adding a short reference to/description of the Identifiable class prior to Figure 2, since it is at the top (even though there is a description in the box to the left of it in the figure), the significance of it being where it is, and why some classes in Figure 1 do not appear here (i.e. why they do not need to be identified via an id attribute – ex: PostalAddress)
- Figure 2 (Accuracy): Box to left of RegistryObject states that “classes in the model below are referred to as core information model classes”, yet the indication of such classes is only on the right of that row (under ExternalIdentifier and ExtrinsicObject).
- Figure 2 (Accuracy): Shouldn’t this figure also contain the Access Control Information Model?
- Line 430 (Grammar): “The remainder of this document will be describing…” – change to “The remainder of this document will describe...”