[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF v2 Review
Just to be clear if we make the Exec Summary a Committee Note as is being proposed the question of normative doesn't come into play, everything is regarded as being non-normative. John From: Colin Wallis [mailto:Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz] << My main question is whether including the conformance criteria is the right thing to do? As well as nearly doubling the length, it introduces new terms and concepts that haven't been explained.>> Fair point, but it is a standard after all so that is the essence of its raison d’etre. If we were to, say, move it to an appendix/annex we would want to be sure that that was normative, under OASIS rules.. Cheers Colin From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Mark Woodward Chris and John, I agree with Chris that this would be best as a separate document, there is much more chance of it being read by the target audience. I think Chris has taken a sound approach in assembling, and I agree that this will make keeping the document in line with the Framework itself much easier. As a result the only suggestion I've made in the attached version is to merge and reduce two paragraphs into one, see what you think (it also removes another one of those errant references to cities). My main question is whether including the conformance criteria is the right thing to do? As well as nearly doubling the length, it introduces new terms and concepts that haven't been explained. Regards, Mark Mark Woodward Mill Beck Consulting Limited Tel: +44 (0) 7788 414553 On 14 Nov 2013, at 10:44, Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com> wrote: <TGF v2 Executive Summary v0.1.doc> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]