Part 2 -- Source/target definitions and clause 8.5

[MURATA Makoto]

Caroline,

Thank you very much for your careful review.
It appears that WG4 will have to discuss this
clause extensively in the F2F.

I will try to respond to your comments tomorrow.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Makoto

2016年6月1日水曜日、caroline arms<caroline.arms at gmail.com>さんは書きました:

> Murata-san, et al.,
>
> I have spent some time trying to say something helpful about the issue
> of changing the definitions associated with relationships.
> Unfortunately, I have found reading your proposed changes to clause
> 8.5 (Relationships) rather confusing and keep finding new concerns
> that send me off in new directions of exploration.  I feel a need to
> understand your proposals for clause 8.5 before making specific
> comments on terms and definitions.
>
> Today is the last day before my vacation and I do not have time to do
> anything more.  So what I am sending includes plenty of questions.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>


-- 

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/20160601/244a3779/attachment.html>