Part 2 -- Source/target definitions and clause 8.5

[caroline arms]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRA_Clause8-5_20160531.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 145342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160531/b1c88507/attachment-0001.docx>