RE: [tag] Spec Ref always mandatory? (use case: TA part of spec)

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Well, in V0.8 of Anatomy, that would fall into the case of an "implicit"
TA element. 

So the current proposed approach is NOT to present a TA as a set of
mandatory + optional elements, but to describe what "properties" a TA
must support. These properties are worded as :
- TA must be uniquely identified...
- TA must refer to ...
- TA must identify a class of targets..
- etc. 
Now, regardless of how such a property is represented (an explicit TA
component? An implicit value obtained from the TA context? A rule to
infer its value?), it is OK as long as this property is implemented, and
some way is provided to the reader to access its value. 

So I think your case is fine: the reference and access to the precise
normative statement is still there - only implemented in a different
way, implicit per the location of the TA representation.

Jacques 


-----Original Message-----
From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk [mailto:stephen.green@systml.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:01 PM
To: TAG TC
Subject: [tag] Spec Ref always mandatory? (use case: TA part of spec)

It has occurred to me that when TAs are actually written as part of a
spec then there may be no need for a Spec Ref.
So maybe we can't say it is mandatory, not strictly.

--
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php