<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-CA;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Good morning, afternoon and evening,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In going over the DR log I noticed this defect report. On our January 7<sup>th</sup> teleconference we decided to add a new a new entry for ‘relationship type’ into the Terms and Definitions section of Part 2:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin-left:.5in'><b><u><span style='color:blue'>relationship type </span></u></b><u><span style='color:blue'>— A URI. Identifies the function of a relationship within the package, as defined in the Standard. Format designers may define new relationship types as needed. <o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal>I believe we left it with an ask of GB to determine if this was satisfactory. GB folks, any thoughts on if this addresses the initial request?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the meantime, I’ve gone through the 405 instances of ‘type’ in Part 2 looking for ambiguous references ( that is, when it is unclear what type is specifying ). I found that all cases of ‘type’ were well qualified and unambiguous. As such, I don’t think we have anything else to do regarding replacing any instances of ‘type’ with anything else to provide more clarity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>What do we think about this DR?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>shawn<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>