RE: [xtm-wg] XTM Specification: Final Draft

[Daniel Rivers-Moore <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>]

I hereby submit my comments on the Final Draft XTM 1.0 Specification

1) In 1.3 Terminology, definition of "subject indicator", item 2 ... Propose
replacing the word "describes" with the word "indicates". Reason: for
consistency and clarity.

2) In 1.3 Terminology, definition of "subject indicator", final paragraph.
Propose deleting the phrases "(case 2, above)" and "(case 3, above)", and
replacing "(Case 1 may be either, depending on how the referenced topic
indicates its subject.)" with "(Note that in case 3, the subject is
necessarily addressable, since it is a resource.)".  Reason: The use of
subject indicators is applicable to addressable as well as non-addressable
subjects.

3) In 1.3 Terminology, definition of "topic type". Propose replacing "by an
<topic> element's <instanceOf> child element" with "by an <instanceOf> child
of a <topic> element". Reason: correction of typo ("an <topic> ...") and
clarity with regard to the fact that a <topic> element may have more than
one <instanceOf> child.

4) In 2.2.1.1 Subject. Suggest replacing "concept of tragedy" with "concept
of vengeance". Reason: For consistency with the examples given in the
definition of "non-addressable subject" in 1.3 Terminology.

5) In 2.2.1.2 Reification, paragraph 2. Delete "to" in "and to come as close
as a machine can". Reason: grammar.

6) In 2.2.1.3 Subject identity, numbered item 2. Replacing "a subject
indicators" with "a subject indicator". Reason: grammar.

7) In 2.2.1.4 Subject indicator, last paragraph. Delete the comma in "the
same or another, topic map document". Reason: grammar.

8) In 2.2.2 Name. Replace "name variants" with "variants". Reason: for
consistency of terminology ... Elsewhere, the term has always been "variant
name", or simply "variant".

9) In 2.2.4.3 Class-instance. Suggest replacing "defined by PSIs" with
"defined by published subject indicators (PSIs)". Reason: clarity ... this
is the first use of the PSI acronym outside the "terminology" section.

10) In 2.2.5.2 Consistent Topic Map. Replace "suppression as, defined in"
with "suppression, as defined in". Reason: grammar.

11) 3.1 Introduction to Topic Map syntax, bullet list, subjectIdentity.
Replace "Subject represented by Topic" with "Subject reified by Topic".
Reason: consistency of terminology.

12) 3.6.1 <topic> Element, paragraph 4.  Replace "via the <instanceOf> child
element, which addresses" with "via the <instanceOf> child element(s), each
of which addresses". Reason: There may be more than one <instanceOf> child
element.

13) 3.7.1 <baseName> Element, examples, last paragraph. Replace "labelled"
with "labeled". Reason: international English spelling, and consistency with
B.0 Introduction

14) 3.7.5 <parameters> Element,  Content Model, <subjectIndicatorRef>.
Replace "a resource whose subject identity point indicates the processing
context" with "a resource that indicates the processing context". Reason:
Clarity. The phrase "subject identity point" is nowhere defined. It is used
in the comments to the PSI section to mean the resource that indicates the
subject, but here we are talking about the subject itself, i.e. that which
the resource indicates.

15) 3.8.2 <member> Element, Content model, <topicRef>, <resourceRef> and
<subjectIndicatorRef>. Replace "The optional repeatable" with "Each optional
repeatable" (3 times) Reason: Clarity that there may be more than one
topic/subject playing the same role.

16) 4 Conformance ... There remain several references to "XTM 1.0 Syntax
Specification" and "XTM 1.0 Processing Model Specification". These should be
reworded to refer to "this specification" and "Annex F: XTM Processing
Requirements", as appropriate. NOTE that if Annex F is referred to in the
conformance clause for XTM Applications in the way it currently is, then
Annex F itself needs to be labeled as "normative", not as "informative". The
alternative is to leave Annex F as informative, and weaken the XTM
Application Conformance statement in section 4.

17) B.0 Introduction, An Explanation ..., ... arrowhead, paragraph 1.
Replace "0...*" with "0..*".  Reason: correction of typo.

18) B.0 Introduction, An Explanation ..., ... arrowhead, paragraph 2.
Replace "this denotes the ability to pass from one to the other" with "this
denotes that the relationship is traversible in one direction only".
Reason: Clarity.

19) B.0 Introduction, An Explanation ..., ... arrowhead, After paragraph 4.
Insert additional paragraph as follows. "Finally, the connection itself may
be labeled with a name between double angle brackets, indicating the nature
of the relationship (e.g. <<REIFIES>>)." Reason: This aspect of the diagrams
had not been explained.

20) B.4 Referencing the Subject, diagram. The label "resource reference"
adjacent to the Topic box should be erased, and a label "<<REFERENCES>>"
should be placed next to the downward part of the arrow itself. (Sincere
apologies - this was my oversight).

21) Annex F, title. Change "(Informative)" to "(Normative)" (OR weaken the
Conformance statements in 4 Conformance). Reason: This Annex is currently
cited in a normative way in the conformance clause for XTM Applications in 4
Conformance.

22) F.2.2 URI equality principle. Paragraphs 2 and 3 say the same thing in
different words. One or the other is redundant.

23) Final comment - great work by all involved.



Daniel





-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Pepper [mailto:sylvia@multinet.no]
Sent: 05 February 2001 09:18
To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xtm-wg] XTM Specification: Final Draft


Due to problems with a mail server I have not received any
postings to this list since Murray's note

   ANNOUNCE: Update of TopicMaps.Org XTM Repository of 2001-02-01
   dated 17:59 01/02/01 -0800

The participating members have been aware of this situation and
Sam has sent me his comments directly via another account. (They
constituted 8 papers of double column text in 8pt Courier, and
were exceedingly useful. Thank you, Sam! We have processed every
single one, and most (but not all) are reflected in the latest
text.)

I am aware that Murray has raised some issues concerning his
resignation and modifications to the DTD, but I haven't seen
these, and will therefore refrain from commenting until I have
done so.

The situation with respect to the XTM specification is as
follows:

* The editors delivered their Final Draft on February 3rd, as
   instructed. It was sent directly to all Participating Members.
   It has apparently not yet been posted to the topicmaps.org
   web site, due to the fact that the webmaster is no longer
   discharging his duties. I have therefore just uploaded it to
   the xtm-wg file area on YahooGroups.

* We are now in the final review phase, during which the editors
   will take comments up to midnight on Wednesday Feb 7th EST.

* On Feb 10th, a Review Specification will be published and, at
   the same time, sent out for balloting by the participating
   members of TopicMaps.Org. The voting period ends on Feb 17th.

The editors look forward to receiving your comments as soon as
possible.

Best regards,

Steve

P.S. Until further notice, I can be reached c/o <sylvia@multinet.no>.

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Technology Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Maridalsveien 99B, N-0461 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-22805465  GSM: +47-90827246



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981451567/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com