Part 2 -- Source/target definitions and clause 8.5

[MURATA Makoto]

Caroline

I am working on WD 3.1.

In Prague, we discussed you comments.

Let me explain my take on the Prague agreements, and
what I plan to do.


> I am a bit concerned about giving relationship-specific definitions to
> "source" and "target" -- given that those words may need to be used in
> different senses in Parts 1 and 4.  "Target" is certainly used in
> connection with hyperlinks in part 1.  And "source" is used to discuss
> data sources in 11.7 -- sources, which in this situation, are targets
> of relationships.
>
> I understand your wish to deal with the fact that not all relationship
> sources are parts, but I'm concerned about the ramifications of your
> proposal to address the issue.  I find myself wondering whether
> defining "relationship source" (to include the package as a whole as
> well as source parts) as well as "source part" might work.  But I
> can't say until I have a better grasp of your proposals for the text
> about relationships.

We understand your concern.  But it is too
cumbersome to repeat "relationship source" or
"relationship target".  In most cases, the intention
is clear from the context.  If in doubt, we can
always say "relationship source" or "relationship
target".

> A couple of other general thoughts/questions:
>
> 1.  I'm beginning to think that an equivalent to Annex G, the table
> with guidelines for meeting conformance, would be worth having.  I
> seem to remember that a reason for dropping it was the
> implementer/producer/consumer perspective.  But having the constraints
> clearly summarized from a document/package perspective could be
> valuable.  I found myself wanting to rely on it as I explored issues
> wrt relationships, and particularly to understand what Part 1 requires
> for a package (e.g. for a Word document) but OPC does not.  For
> example, Part 1 describes "unknown parts" and makes it clear that they
> can be ignored.  In Part 2, the only reasonable way to determine
> whether all parts need to be the target of a relationship is by seeing
> that there is no such requirement in Annex G.

We are likely to keep Annex G.

>
> 2.  There is occasionally a semantic confusion, in 2012 text and in
> your changes, between the "source" "of" or "for" a relationships part
> and the source for all the individual relationships in that part.  In
> practice the "source" plays both roles, of course.  That fact might be
> stressed a little more.  Alternatively, we good standardize on "source
> for" a relationships part and the "source of" an individual
> relationship.

I think that we agreed to use "source" only when we are talking about
relationships.  We shouldn't use "source of a relationships part".
Unforunately, this is not the case yet in WD 3.1.  I am going to send
you another email about this.

>
> 3. You have deleted all the diagrams in clause 8.5.  I am concerned
> that the diagrams convey some substance that is no longer present in
> the remaining content, for example, when attributes are required in
> Relationship elements.  And it seems odd that the Relationships
> Element (clause 9.3.2.1 in published 2012 Part2) now has now text,
> just two minimal tables.  Has the removal of the diagrams been
> discussed and agreed to?  I don't remember it but it could easily have
> happened at a face-to-face meeting.

Alex and others feel differently.  Consistency witt Parts 1 and 4, as
well as clear semantics are more important.  Diagrams do not
really explain validity especially when we consider MCE.  As a
result, we are going to mimick definitions in Part 1.


> 4.  I think that clause 7 (Overview) would benefit from some general
> informative statements (and maybe examples) about
> implementation-dependent possibilities, such as additional constraints
> (e.g. needing relationship elements to avoid parts being "unknown),
> new relationship types, etc.

This is not done yet.  Hopefully, we can discuss in Seattle.  Will
add your comment to the next draft.

Regards,
Makoto

> Attached is a copy of clause 8-5 extracted from your draft and with
> changes accepted.  It yields more questions, some suggestions of
> substance and others of a grammatical or style nature.
>
> Enjoy the face-to-face meeting.
>
>    Best from Caroline