WD3 of the OPC Spec

[caroline arms]

Rex and Murata-san,

Since I wasn't at the face-to-face, I don't know exactly what was decided
there, but here are a few things I notice, in addition to  anomalies
reported by Murata-san.

Terms and definitions.   I have a question about what the ISO guidelines
for T&D would say about "relationship, package" and "relationship, part."
I wonder about adding "package relationship" "part relationship" to the
list with pointers to the inverted forms -- since the context of
"relationship" does seem useful.

8.3.2  At this point (before any changes based on Murata-san's comments), I
see "a historical" in one place and "an historical" somewhere else.
Personally, I would go for "a" but then I was brought up pronouncing the
"h" -- but consistency would be important if the term is used twice.

8.3.6  Case 3.  The second para is still confusing to me.  It would be
better either to drop "within a relationship part" or to replace "a" with
"the," since for this case, the only part iit can be is ./rels/rels.

8.4  I assume the reformatting Rex mentions in his comment has not yet been
done.  I note that my recommendation to clarify that 5.2.3 (in example 2,
part 1 and example 3, part 1) refers to RFC 3986 (and not this OPC spec)
has not been accepted.  If the repeated references to 5.2.3 survive the
reformatting, I think this clarification would be essential.

8.5.2  Need to be consistent about whether we use "relationship part" or
"relationships part."  I think "relationships part" is probably correct and
apologize for instances where I have used the singular version.

8.5.3.1   need space in "specifiedin"

   Hope this helps

   Caroline

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 8:50 AM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
wrote:

> The second para in 8.3.1 was converted to a note in N345,
> but it is not a note in WD3.
>
> The last para in 8.3.1 is slightly different.
>
> The last note in 8.3.5 is mistakenly converted to a title.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
>
> 2016-07-10 18:16 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
>
>> Rex,
>>
>> I introduced a paragraph in the beginning of 8.3.2, but
>> we agreed to accept Caroline's comment and rather
>> create a note at the end of this subclause.  This is what
>> is recorded in N345 OPC Revision Draft Clause 8-3 and 8-4.
>>
>> But WD3 still has the note. I will check WD3 more carefully.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
>>
>>
>>  [image: Functions]
>> <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objid=8912947&objaction=ndocslist#>
>>
>> 2016-06-27 4:14 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
>>
>>> I took an action item in Prague to produce a new Working Draft of the OPC
>>> spec. That is attached.
>>>
>>> Rex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>
>> Makoto
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160713/c2e4e692/attachment-0001.html>