RE: [uoml-x-comment] Section 1.1 rfc2119 Reference - addition

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

I corrected the defect to remove line breaks.  The problem is not line breaking but the "Error: Reference source not found"

 - Dennis

ADDED COMMENT:

Although it is not an error, I also notice that some later specifications (such as the ODF 1.0 document used for ISO/IEC 26300:2006) use an alternative form of requirement language.  E.g.,

***
Within this specification, the verbal forms "shall", "shall not", "should", "should not", "may", "may not", "can", and "cannot" are to be interpreted as described in Annex H of [ISO/IEC Directives].  These are the only terms used to express requirements, recommendations, permission, and possibility/capability.
***

With reference to

[ISO/IEC Directives]ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards, 2004.  Available at http://www.iec.ch/tiss/iec/Directives-Part2-Ed5.pdf and
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=4230456&objAction=browse&sort=subtype





-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uoml-x-comment/200810/msg00000.html
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 14:32
To: UOML-X Comment
Subject: [uoml-x-comment] Section 1.1 rfc2119 Reference

This comment applies to
uoml-part1-v1.0-cs01.pdf section 1.1, Terminology, page 7 line 3
uoml-part1-v1.0-cs01.odt section 1.1, Terminology

I downloaded them from the location provided in the Call for Vote:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uoml-x/200809/msg00002.html

DEFECT:

The first paragraph reads

***
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described inError: Reference source not found Error: Reference source not found.
***

I believe that references to [RFC2119] are intended.  

RECOMMENDED CORRECTION:

***
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
***


 - Dennis

PS: I apologize for not examining this specification more closely after we resolved some concerns with the original format.  I see there are other problems with the documents.  These problems have been introduced since the September 6 versions were produced and examined:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uoml-x-comment/200809/msg00007.html (see .odt attachment)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uoml-x-comment/200809/msg00008.html (see Zip attachments)


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 

[ ... ]