| TITLE: | Summary of Voting on JTC 1/SC 34 N 524 - Document Schema Definition Language (DSDL) - Part 3: Rule-base validation (Schematron) |
| SOURCE: | SC34 Secretariat |
| PROJECT: | CD 19757-3: Document Schema Definition Language (DSDL) Part 3 - Rule-based validation |
| PROJECT EDITOR: | Mr. Rick Jelliffe |
| STATUS: | Summary of voting |
| ACTION: | Based on the ballot responses, this CD is APPROVED and the project status changes to 30.60. Project Editors are requested to review comments and strongly consider disapproved votes. Please advise the Secretariat regarding (1) the change to status 30.92 or 30.99, and (2) the next project status and anticipated date that project status will change. |
| DATE: | 2004-09-10 |
| DISTRIBUTION: | SC34 and Liaisons |
| REFER TO: | N0524b - 2004-06-01 - Ballot due 2004-09-01 - Document Schema Definition Language (DSDL) - Part 3: Rule-base
validation (Schematron) N0524 - 2004-06-01 - Document Schema Definition Language (DSDL) - Part 3: Rule-base validation (Schematron) |
| REPLY TO: |
Dr. James David Mason (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat - Standards Council of Canada) Crane Softwrights Ltd. Box 266, Kars, ON K0A-2E0 CANADA Telephone: +1 613 489-0999 Facsimile: +1 613 489-0995 Network: [email protected] http://www.jtc1sc34.org |
| P-Member | APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT AS PRESENTED | APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT WITH COMMENTS AS GIVEN ON THE ATTACHED | DISAPPROVAL OF THE DRAFT FOR REASONS ON THE ATTACHED | DISAPPROVAL (appropriate changes in the text will change vote to APPROVAL) | ABSTENTION (For Reasons Below) | NO RESPONSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | X | |||||
| China | X | |||||
| Italy | X | |||||
| Japan | X | |||||
| Korea, Republic of | X | |||||
| Netherlands | X | |||||
| Norway | X | |||||
| United Kingdom | X | |||||
| United States | X |
(1) Clause 3 is misleading. Although the first sentence says "The definitions of Part 1 and Part 2 also apply to this part of ISO/IEC 19757", some terms in Part 2 (e.g., "valid with respect to a schema", "pattern") are used differently from Part 2. The first sentence should be removed and every word borrowed from Part 1 and Part 2 should be explicitly listed.
(2) Sub-clause 4.2 does not make any sense (probably due to a formatting problem). Please rewrite and reformat this sub-clause.