Part 2 -- Source/target definitions and clause 8.5

[caroline arms]

Murata-san,

There is no need to rush to respond right away for my benefit.  I am
leaving for my sailing trip in a couple of hours.

   Regards,  Caroline

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:26 AM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>
> 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