ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 WG2-EM0112-004

Date: 2001-12-05

REPLACES: -

Title: List of FCD 11179-3 Ballot Comments Requiring Change to the Model

Source: Ray Gates (Project Editor)

SEQ#	Cmnt ID		See Also	Severity	Reference	Description	Addressed By
023	CAN-P03-109		CAN-P03-171 (#108) CAN-P03-173 (#117) CAN-P03-174 (#171) CAN-P03-175 (#155) CAN-P03-176 (#111) CAN-P03-177 (#118) CAN-P03-178 (#163) CAN-P03-179 (#112) CAN-P03-202 (#255) AU35 (#049)	2-Minor Technical	P03-03 P03-03-03-006 P03-03-03-032 P03-03-03-033 P03-03-03-034 P03-03-03-055 P03-03-03-088	Proposal to use not use abbreviations in terms in clause 3, but to provide short names as aliases where they are needed (e.g. to fit in a diagram). See detailed comments on clauses 3.3.6, 3.3.32, 3.3.33, 3.3.34, 3.3.55, 3.3.88 and perhaps more. Where we do need to use abbreviations, we need to decide whether they should always be capitalized, or whether the capitalization should vary depending on the metamodel construct being named – i.e. capitalize only classes. Proposed Solution Spell out the terms in full in clause 3. Add a clause 3.4 Abbreviations to list the abbreviations that are used elsewhere in the document. Check usage throughout the document. To be discussed at editing meeting.	Accepted. Identify where abbreviations are used in Figures and add appropriate notes..
113	CAN-P03-019		CAN-P03-065 (#231) CAN-P03-072 (#245) CAN-P03-075 (#235)	4-Minor Editorial	P03-03-03-029	“context description language” is defined as being “the identifier for the language…”. In that case, the term should be “context description language identifier”, where in 11179-5 terminology, “identifier” is a representation term. This serves to distinguish the property from a “language name” or “language description”. Proposed Solution Include the word “identifier” in the term. Make the change wherever the term is used, which is currently only in Figure 3 in clause 4.6. It should also be in clause 4.6.2. Note: A consistent approach needs to be taken for all similar terms.	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
130	CAN-P03-185		CAN-P03-117 (#028) CAN-P03-186 (#261) CAN-P03-187 (#274) CAN-P03-188 (#296) CAN-P03-189 (#296) CAN-P03-190 (#407) CAN-P03-191 (#408) CAN-P03-192 (#381) CAN-P03-193 (#392)	2-Minor Technical	P03-03-03-054	The term is not precise enough for the definition. Proposed Solution Change the term to “datatype scheme reference” to better match the definition. Change all references in the text and figures (see related comments).	Accepted. Change Figure 6.
137	CAN-P03-195			2-Minor Technical	P03-03-03-065	The term uses the word “description”. The definition uses the word “specification”. A description is not a specification. Proposed Solution In the term, replace “description” by “specification”.	Accepted. Need to change Figure 7.
176a		WG2-005		4-Minor Editorial	P03-03-03-109	Since the definition specifies that this is an identifier, the term should include the word identifier. Proposed Solution Change the term to "reference document language identifier". Make the corresponding change in the model.	Editor given authority to address Minor Editorial comments without discussion. Done in 3-3-109. Needs to be reflected in Figure 2.
198	CAN-P03-227			2-Minor Technical	P03-04	WG2 SD13 “Issue 098: Scope of name spaces” needs to be addressed. [Note: This comment has been expanded from the original to include details from the issue paper, and to add a proposed solution.] The last paragraph of Clause 4.6.1 states: "A particular name must be unique for a particular language within a given context and across all types of administered component. For example, a data element and a value domain may not both have the same name within a particular context in any one language. Either, suitable qualifiers should be added to names to make them unique, or if that is not possible the definitions of context need to be refined to allow the use of distinct contexts." This text was introduced by the resolution of CD ballot comment CAN-P03-069. Issues: Should name spaces be modeled explicitly? Does the quoted paragraph adequately define the name spaces we need? Do we need to provide registrars the capability to define their own name spaces? Proposed Solution The issue paper proposes: "Review the scope within which names must be unique. Consider providing some flexibility to registrars to set their own rules." NOTE: ISO/IEC 11179-5 clause 4.2 explicitly states a naming convention for a Context shall specify whether or not names are required to be unique within the context. Proposal 1: Add to Context a new attribute: "context_names_unique [0..1] : Boolean". Update Figure 3 and clause 4.6.2. Proposal 2: Add to Context a new attribute: "context_naming_convention_description [0..1] : string" to allow the naming convention for the context to be described or referenced. Update Figure 3 and clause 4.6.2.	Defer to continuation editing meeting.
214	CAN-P03-047		CAN-P03-018 (#105) CAN-P03-048 (#223)	4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-05	In Figure 2, the first attribute in Administration Record should be “administered_item_identifier”, rather than “item_identifier”. Proposed Solution Correct the attribute name as specified.	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
215a	WG2-001		CAN-P03-032 (#144)	4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-05	Apply CAN-P03-032 to Figure 2. Proposed Solution Change "documentation language" to "documentation language identifier" in Figure 2 in clause 4.5.	Accepted. Needs change to model.
216	CAN-P03-049		CAN-P03-016 (#051) CAN-P03-050 (#103) CAN-P03-051 (#104) CAN-P03-052 (#222) CAN-P03-085 (#293) CAN-P03-086 (#406)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-05-01	[Edited to leave only model changes] Proposed Solution 3. Add to the model in Figure 2, an "Administered Item Relationship", similar to other recursive relationships in the model (e.g. Classification Scheme Item Relationship in Figure 4). (CAN-P03-050 (#103) adds the term and definition to clause 3.) 4. This attributed relationship should have the attribute: "administered item relationship type descriptor [1:1] String" (CAN-P03-051 (#104) adds the term and definition to clause 3.)	Proposal 3 accepted. Needs change to the model. Proposal 4 accepted. Needs change to the model.
220	CAN-P03-056			2-Minor Technical	P03-04-05-01	In Figure 2, the relationship between Registration Authority and Registrar is shown as an aggregation. Is a Registration Authority really an aggregation of registrars? Proposed Solution Requires discussion at the editing meeting.	Remove the aggregation symbol. Needs change to the model.
228	CAN-P03-058		CAN-P03-059 (#229) CAN-P03-060 (#238) CAN-P03-061 (#242) CAN-P03-062 (#100) CAN-P03-063 (#382) CAN-P03-064 (#386) CAN-P03-073 (#246) CAN-P03-074 (#247) CAN-P03-075 (#235) DDM-032 (#241)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-06	Apply the change proposed in Issue 091 on the open issues list in WG2-SD14 to the Naming & Definition region. The CD Editing meeting proposed that this issue be deferred to the next version of the standard because no-one at the meeting claimed to understand the proposal. Now that we understand it better, we believe it should be adopted now, to ensure better forward compatibility than would be possible if we keep the present model now and change it later. Proposed Solution The complete proposal, including some minor revisions, is contained in Annex A to these Canadian ballot comments. Individual comments have been included for each affected clause.	Accepted. Need to restore “definition source reference” to the new diagram from Annex A to the Canadian comments. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
229	CAN-P03-059		CAN-P03-058 (#228)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-06	Revise clause 4.6 to reflect the change proposed in CAN-P03-058 (#228). Proposed Solution Replace Figure 3 in 4.6 by that contained in Annex A.	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
230	CAN-P03-199		CAN-P03-198 (#153)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-06	Apply CAN-P03-198 (#153) to Figure 3 in clause 4.6.	Defer to continuation editing meeting.
231	CAN-P03-065		CAN-P03-019 (#113)	4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-06	Apply proposal from CAN-P03-019 (#113). Proposed Solution Change ""context description language"" to ""context description language identifier" in Figure 3.	Accepted.
235	CAN-P03-075		CAN-P03-019 (#113) CAN-P03-058 (#228)	4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-06	If CAN-P03-058 (#228) was accepted, and if the renaming of “language” properties to “language identifier” was accepted (CAN-P03-019 (#113), CAN-P03-027 (#132), CAN-P03-029 (#132)), then apply this name change to CAN-P03-058 (#228). Proposed Solution Rename “language section language” to “language section language identifier” in the revised Figure 3 from Annex A..	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
236	DDM-031			4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-06	Figure 3 revise to reflect "Context (for Administered Item) Proposed Solution Figure 3 revise to reflect "Context (for Administered Item)	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
261	CAN-P03-186		CAN-P03-185 (#130)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-09	Apply CAN-P03-185 (#130) to Figure 6 in clause 4.9.	Accepted.
265	MN-007			4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-09	Figure 6: In Representation Class (lower left box), change “representation_class_administered_item” to “representation_class_administration_record” Proposed Solution Change “representation_class_administered_item” to “representation_class_administration_record”	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
266	CAN-P03-217			1-Major Technical	P03-04-09 Figure 6	In Figure 6, a conceptual domain can be record without a corresponding value domain being recorded, but there seems to be no way to record that the conceptual domain is non-enumerated, other than to infer it from the absence of enumerated value meanings. Proposed Solution Rename the classes "Non-enumerated Domain" and "Enumerated Domain" to "Non-enumerated Value Domain" and "Enumerated Value Domain" and introduce equivalent "Non-enumerated Conceptual Domain" and "Enumerated Conceptual Domain" classes as sub-types of Conceptual Domain, with a new relationship between "Non-enumerated Conceptual Domain" and "Non-enumerated Value Domain".	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05 except for Non-enumerated conceptual domain and its relationship to non-enumerated value domain. Doug believes this is not required.
275a	WG2-008		CAN-P03-226 (#197) WG2-009 (#287a)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-10	Apply resolution of CAN-P03-226 (#197) proposal 4 to Figure 7 in clause 4.10.	Defer to continuation editing meeting.
276	CAN-P03-081		CAN-P03-021 (#121) DDM-041 (#278)	4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-10	Apply counterpart to CAN-P03-021 (#121) Proposed Solution To be provided.	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
279	MN-011			4-Minor Editorial	P03-04-10	Figure 7: In Representation Class (top box), change “representation_class_administered_item” to “representation_class_administration_record” Proposed Solution Change “representation_class_administered_item” to “representation_class_administration_record”	Accepted. Done in Doug's model as of 2001-12-05.
287a	WG2-009		CAN-P03-226 (#197) WG2-007 (#261a) WG2-008 (#275a)	2-Minor Technical	P03-04-11-01	Apply resolution of CAN-P03-226 (#197) proposals 3 and 4 to Figure 8 in clause 4.11.1.	Defer to continuation editing meeting.