DR 09-0322 - OPC: Types

[Shawn Villaron]

Good morning, afternoon and evening,

In going over the DR log I noticed this defect report.  On our January 7th teleconference we decided to add a new a new entry for 'relationship type' into the Terms and Definitions section of Part 2:


relationship type - 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.
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?

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.

What do we think about this DR?

Thanks,

shawn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100401/6cda5dc6/attachment.htm>