ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34N0528
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
Information Technology --
Document Description and Processing Languages
| TITLE: | Summary of Voting on JTC 1/SC 34 N 495 CD 13250-3: Information Technology - Document Description and Processing Languages, Topic Maps - XML Syntax |
| SOURCE: | SC34 Secretariat |
| PROJECT: | CD 13250-3: Information Technology - Topic Maps - XML Syntax |
| PROJECT EDITOR: | Mr. Lars Marius Garshol; Mr. Graham Moore |
| 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 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: | 2004-07-11 |
| DISTRIBUTION: | SC34 and Liaisons |
| REFER TO: | N0495b - 2004-03-29 - Ballot Due 2004-06-29 CD 13250-3: Information Technology - Document Description and Processing Languages,
Topic Maps - XML Syntax N0495 - 2004-03-16 - CD 13250-3: Information Technology - Document Description and Processing Languages, Topic Maps - XML Syntax |
| 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 | Acceptance of these reasons and appropriate changes in the text will change our vote to approval | ABSTENTION (For Reasons Below) | NO RESPONSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | X | |||||
| China | ||||||
| Italy | X | |||||
| Japan | X | |||||
| Korea, Republic of | ||||||
| Netherlands | X | |||||
| Norway | X | |||||
| United Kingdom | X | |||||
| United States | X | |||||
| O-member (for comment only) | ||||||
| Germany | X | |||||
Japan's Comments on ISO/IEC CD 13250-3 (SC34 N495): Topic Maps - XML Syntax
1. General comment
The relationship between ISO/IEC 13250-4 and 13250-3 is NOT clear. The two standards give data models based on the syntax with XML, and the data model in 13250-4 is expected to be a canonical version of that in 13250-3. The clear description on such a relationship should be given in 13250-3.
2. Technical comments
(1) Clause 2
ISO/IEC 19757-2/Amd.1 (RELAX-NG Compact Syntax) should be added as a Normative reference.
(2) Clause 3, Para. 3
"XTM topic maps" should be replaced with "XTM", avoiding a repetition; TM topic maps.
(3) Annex E
The Annex E should includes the reason why XTM 1.0 is changed into XTM 1.1.
3. Editorial comment
(1) Clause 5.16, Para.5
"If the member element no roleSpec child element ..." should be
"If the member element has no roleSpec child element ...".
UK Comments on ISO/IEC CD 13250-3 contained in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34N0495
Some comments on Clause 4 of Part 3:
4.2As all links from XTM 1.1 must be simple links shouldn't the value "simple" be declared as fixed?
he model for any-markup does not clearly allow for the situation where text with embedded markup is allowed as the model is not repeatable and any-markup is used without any qualifiers when referenced. If this is somehow inherent from the RELAX NG spec (which I doubt) a comment to this affect should be added.
4.3It should not be necessary to redeclare the id attribute declared in 4.2.
4.4/4.5Declarations longer than 50 characters long should be split to ensure they appear on the page at all stages, irrespective of the user's preferred font size.
4.8As both VariantName and variant are optional you could end up with a variant element that just has an id and parameters. As this is the only case where scope is not defined using the scope element it is encumbent on us to spell out that scopes of variants are defined using parameters. (Though for the life of me I can see no logical reason for introducing a new name for scope here as scopes are additive everywhere and so parameters adds nothing to the model, and detracts significantly from its simplicity)
4.16
It is not clear under which circumstances it would be valid to declare a member with no topic references. In fact you could just declare
The xlink:type description has been duplicated.
Re 5.2why is the URL for 1.0 referenced when we are defining 1.1?
US National Body comments for vote on 13250-3 CD
1. Introduction
The U.S. National Body voted not to approve the promotion of the Topic Maps -- XML Syntax (13250-3). This document contains the comments from this national body that lead to this vote.
2. Major Technical Issues
The following issues were deemed a major technical issues by the U.S. National Body and must be corrected before the document can be promoted to CD status:
ItemThe US National Body has previously stated that no part of the current restatement of ISO 13250 should progress beyond CD until the Topic Maps Reference Model is also at CD status (see N477). The motivation for this position is to ensure that the different parts of this multi-model standard are coordinated.
There is one related issue of interest in such coordination:
1. If XTM is a serialization of the TMDM (13250-2), then the TMDM (13250-2) must of necessity proceed a step before Topic Maps -- XTM Syntax (13250-3).
ItemThe U.S. notes with approval that the ISO/IEC 19757-2 schema for the XTM1.1 element types baseNameString and resourceData now allows foreign markup ("any-markup"). However, there is no corresponding construct in Annexes B and C. The U.S. accordingly requests that the syntaxes should produce the same document.
Stylistic comments:The draft should be consistent in the presentation of headings. In Clause 3, the text of the heading appears on the line after the number; elsewhere, the text and number appear on the same line. (See thr current text of 13250)
The current document, N 495, uses RELAX-NG compact syntax. ISO/IEC 19757-2, is expressed in long syntax. The compact syntax is just a PDAM, which is out for ballot (N523).
The reference for 19757-2 is to an unofficial source, http://www.relaxng.org/, and not to the text of the standard. If nothing else is available, it should be to the most recent SC34 edition, at http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0362_files/relaxng-is.pdf