From: Ray Gates (home) [gatesray@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:39 PM
To: Dan Gillman
Cc: WG2 News
Subject: More comments on PDTR 20943-3 Value Domains


Dan,

As promised, here are some additional comments on PDTR 20943-3.  (BTW, what is part 2 reserved for?)

1. The report is titled "Content Consistency - Part 3: Value Domains", but there is necessarily some discussion of Conceptual Domains.  Should the scope be expanded to explicitly include Conceptual Domains, and the title be amended accordingly?  

2. In the Introduction, para 4, reference is made to "metadata entities".  In FCD 11179-3, (e.g. clause 1.2) the term "metadata items" is used.  Is there a good reason not to use the latter here?

3. In the Introduction, para 4, reference is made to "value domains and their associated components".  I am unhappy with the word "components" here (as I was in 11179-3), because the reference is presumably to metadata entities such as "data elements", "data element concepts", "conceptual domains", which are definitely associated, but which are not really "components" of a value domain.  I have difficulty coming up with a word to simply substitute.  One suggestion is to replace:
"...addresses only value domains and their associated components."
by
"...focuses on [conceptual and] value domains and their associated attributes and relationships  [or related entities?]."

4. In the Introduction, paras 3 and 5, replace:
"CD 11179-3 ... (2000-06-30)"
by:
"FCD 11179-3 ... (2001-05-01)"

5. In clause 1.1 Background, there is no need to spell out ISO/IEC in full, since this was done in the Introduction.  Also, the text "Information Technology - Data management and interchange" adds no real value.  I suggest deleting it.

6. In clause 1.3 Scope, same concern as above about the use of "component". One suggestion is to replace:
"...the components of a value domain..."
by:
"...the attributes and relationships [or related entities?] of a value domain...".

7. In clause 1.3 Scope, "examples" is included as if part of the list of associated attribubtes and relationships, which they are not.  I suggest removing this from the list, and adding an extra sentence about the use of examples in the TR.

8. In clause 2, add a reference to FCD 11179-3 (2001-05-01)

9. In clause 4, item 1), "principals" should be "principles".

10. In clause 4.1, Example 4, penultimate paragraph (on p. 6), there is an unmatched right parenthesis at the end of: D(<3, Unknown>)=<U, Unknown>

11. Example 8 (combined enumerated and non-enumerated domain) at the end of clause 4.1 is an interesting one, but I am not sure it is supported by the current model.  I will write an issue paper on this.

12. In clause 4.2.1, example 10, Industrial Classification Systems, the use of "1 digit", "2 digits" etc. in the names of the conceptual domains does not seem very conceptual.  I suggest using "level 1", "level 2" etc. instead.

13. In clause 5.1, the statement: "Value Domains and Conceptual Domains do not have to be administered components" is incorrect.  Firstly, the correct term is now "administered items".  Secondly, the model requires these to be administered items, since this is the only way they can be named.  This paragraph needs to be rewritten.

That's all for now.  There are some sections I have not read as carefully as others, so I may or may not have further comments later.

Please contact me if you have questions or concerns with these comments.

Thank you.
Ray Gates