Section 5.2

[Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>]

The current text of the first paragraph in section
5.2 is:

        Compliance is based on an implementation’s ability to create types based on reasonable and consistent type definitions.  The definition of objects in the metamodel needs to be consistent with type and property semantics, otherwise the behavior of the SDO implementation is undefined.  

This text is not particularly clear in terms of what is being permitted or restricted.  As we discussed on the call the purpose of the text is to introduce a list of cases where it is possible to create a type that is syntactically correct but semantically inconsistent.  So I suggest the text be replaced with this:
        The metamodel for Type and Property is intentionally rich allowing support for a wide variety of Type and Property definitions.  As a result, it is possible to define a Type that is either internally inconsistent or inconsistent with a base Type or a Property that is inconsistent with its opposite.  Implementation behavior when processing such a Type or Property is undefined.  Specifically, application defined types are expected to adhere to these constraints:


And the last item in the list is incorrect and should be removed.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of Excellence Application Integration Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com