Identifying Revisions in Subsequent Public Review Documents

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

1. In the last TAG TC call, I took an action to obtain clarification of how changes must be indicated when the changes are substantial but not substantive (e.g., there is a significant rearrangement of the sections).

I am requesting guidance on how, in that case, one may comply with the requirement that "changes made to a specification after a review must be clearly identified in any subsequent review."

2. Out of the conversation on that call, there were some additional concerns that I saw.  One has to do with when it is *inappropriate* to do a 15-day review because there have been too many changes or there are more substantive changes than those made solely to address public comments.  There does not seem to be any provision for deciding to start over with a subsequent CD and go back to a full-up minimum-60-day public review.  I can't tell from the mind map whether it is permissible to go back and iterate from there.  Is it permissible to go back to a longer public review?  Are there conditions when the longer minimum public review is required even though there have been previous Public Review Documents?

3. Yet another related question: If it is determined that there needs to be a major change (for example, introducing normative language and matching the form of an OASIS specification in what started out as an essentially expository document), is it necessary to treat this as a different specification with its predecessor abandoned, or can it simply be a later draft that reflects that much new thinking?  (I guess this depends on how one decides if it is substantially a new specification?)

 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org