ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N 2331
Date: 2013-03-20
REPLACES: —
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Data Management and Interchange
Secretariat: United States of America (ANSI)
Administered by Farance Inc. on behalf of ANSI
DOCUMENT TYPE / Summary of Voting/Table of RepliesTITLE / Summary of Voting on 32N2280 ISO/IEC CD2 11179-5 Information Technology - Metadata Registries (MDR) - Part 5: Naming and identification principles, Ed 3
SOURCE / SC32 Secretariat
PROJECT NUMBER / 1.32.15.03.05.00
STATUS / WG2 is requested to resolve the comments. The document did not obtain substantial support.
REFERENCES
ACTION ID. / ACT
REQUESTED ACTION
DUE DATE
Number of Pages / 16
LANGUAGE USED / English
DISTRIBUTION / P & L Members
SC Chair
WG Conveners and Secretaries
Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America
Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:
available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/
*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N2331
Summary of Voting on Document SC 32 N 2280
Title: ISO/IEC CD2 11179-5 Information Technology - Metadata Registries (MDR) - Part 5: Naming and identification principles, Ed 3
Project: 1.32.15.03.05.00
“P” Member / Approval / Approval with Comments / Disapproval with Comments / Abstention with CommentsCanada / 1
China / 1
Czech Republic / 1
Egypt / 1
Finland / 1
Germany / 1
India / 1
Japan / 1
Korea, Republic of / 1
Portugal / 1
Russian Federation / 1
United Kingdom / 1
United States / 1
Total “P” / 6 / 1 / 3 / 3
“O” Member
Austria
Belgium
France / 1
Ghana
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy
Kazakhstan
Netherlands, The
Norway
Romania
Poland
Sweden
Switzerland
Total “O”
Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America
Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:
available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/
*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI
COMMENTS:
Canada
NO. See comments below:
Finland
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
India
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Japan
YES. See comments below:
Portugal
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
United Kingdom
NO. See comments below:
United States
NO. See comments below:
/ Date: 2013-04-01 / Document: N2280 / Project:CD2 11179-5MB/NC1 / Line number / Clause/ Subclause / Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/ / Type of comment2 / Comments / Proposed change / Observations of the secretariat
CA-00 / All / All / - / ge / Canada disapproves of the draft for the reasons below. Since the new template allows for text to be referenced using line numbers, we generated a line numbered version of the text which is attached at the bottom of this document, and we have referenced those line numbers in our comments. / Canada will change its vote to Approval if the comments below are satisfactorily addressed.
Canada asks that future ballot texts include line numbers so that:
a) all NBs can reference them in making their ballot comments; and,
b) The Project Editor(s) can collate all NB comments by line reference in order to prepare a single integrated document of all NB comments, thereby greatly facilitating resolution of ballot comments pertaining to similar NB comments and resolving the same..
CA01 / 113 / 0-Introduction / Para 6 / Ed / The use of 'They' at the beginning of a paragraph requires the reader to look backwards to see what it refers to. / Change 'They' to 'Names'.
CA02 / 128, 130 / 1-Scope / Para 1 / Te / The response to comment CN01 on the previous ballot stated that 'Identification' should be dropped from the title of the document. If this is accepted, then all reference to Identification should be removed. / Remove the discussion of Identification from the Scope, except to refer the reader to Edition 3 of part 6. This should be done via a footnote.
CA 03 / 166 / 3.1 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 04 / 179 / 3.4 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 05 / 182 / 3.5 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 06 / 193 / 3.8 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 07 / 202 / 3.10 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 08 / 207 / 3.11 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 09 / 243 / 3.21 / Reference / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 10 / 265, 266 / 4 Conformance / Para 1 / Ed / In the first sentence:
"A registry containing a set of designatable items associated with a namespace which conform to naming conventions so that:"
It is unclear on a first reading that "which conform" is supposed to refer back to the 'designatable items', not the namespace.
The sentence needs to be clarified. / Reword as:
"A registry containing a namespace associated with a set of designatable items which conform to naming conventions so that:"
CA 11 / 275 / 4 Conformance / Para 2 / Ed / The use of 'shall be' seems inappropriate in:
"A registry in which every namespace conforms to this part of 11179 shall be a conforming registry." / Reword as:
"A registry in which every namespace conforms to this part of 11179 is a conforming registry."
CA 12 / 276, 277 / 4 Conformance / Para 3 / Ed / In the sentence:
"A registry containing a set of designatable items associated with a namespace which conform to naming conventions so that:"
It is unclear on a first reading that "which conform" is supposed to refer back to the 'designatable items', not the namespace.
The sentence needs to be clarified. / Reword as:
"A registry containing a namespace associated with a set of designatable items which conform to naming conventions so that:"
CA 13 / 286, 287 / 4 Conformance / Para 4 / Ed / The use of 'shall be' seems inappropriate in:
"A registry in which every namespace strictly conforms to this part of 11179 shall be a strictly conforming registry." / Reword as:
"A registry in which every namespace strictly conforms to this part of 11179 is a strictly conforming registry."
and remove the extra space before 2nd 'strictly'.
CA 14 / 291 / 5 / Reference in Line 1 / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 15 / 340 / 8.1.1 / Line 1 / Ed / The reference to Clause 4 should be Clause 5. / Make the correction.
CA 16 / 350 / 8.1.2 / Para 2 / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 17 / 354 / 8.1.3 / Para 3 / Ed / The reference to [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012] should be [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Make the correction.
CA 18 / 357. 358 / 8.2 / Para 1, 2nd sentence / Te / The statement "The uniqueness rule resides in the Namespace class as discussed above" is inappropriate, since the rules described in 8.1.2 apply to a Namespace, not a Naming Convention. / For this part, add text allowing a uniqueness rule to be specified for a Naming Convention, even though there is no place to store it in the registry specified by Part 3. WG2 should consider an amendment to part 3 to add a uniqueness rule on a Naming Convention.
CA19 / 451, 452 / 9.7 / All / Te / The current text relates to uniqueness of names within a Namespace. Use of a Naming Convention may lead to potential clashes for names of similar items. A naming convention can enable uniqueness of names by specifying one or more rules to be used when a potential name clash is detected. / Add some text to this effect, with examples of such rules (e.g. using a suffix or other qualifier to make a name unique.)
CA 20 / All / All / Te / If any further problems are discovered before or during the Ballot Resolution Meeting, and a consensus can be reached on a solution, then they should be corrected. / To be determined at the BRM as required.
END
The line numbers used above reference the attached version of the text. We added line numbers to make the references more precise.
1 MB = Member body / NC = National Committee (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)
2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial
page 3 of 10
ISO/IEC electronic balloting commenting template/version 2012-03
ISO/IEC CD2 11179-5 Naming and identification principles / Date: 2013/4/12 / Document: 32N2280T / Project: MDR-5MB/NC1 / Line number
(e.g. 17) / Clause/ Subclause
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of comment2 / Comments / Proposed change / Observations of the secretariat
JP
01 / 276
- 287 / 4 / ED / Duplicate Line 265 - 275 / Remove line 276 – 287.
JP
02 / 378
- 379 / 9.1 / ED / “rules may be recorded” is inconsistent with the Conformance clause (4). It says “…shall have its rules documented. / Change to “rules shall be recorded”
JP
03 / 900 / Annex B / Semantic Rules c. / ED / Japanese translation of Total Amount is incorrect. / “総計” should be “合計金額”.
JP
04 / 920 / Annex B / Semantic Rules g. / ED / Japanese translation of Amount is incorrect. / “計” should be “金額”
JP
05 / 935 / Annex B / Syntactic Rules d. / ED / Japanese translation of Cost Budget Period Total Amount is incorrect. / “経費予算期間総計 or 経費・予算期間・総計” should be “経費予算期間金額合計 or 経費・予算期間・金額合計”
JP
06 / 952 / Annex B / Lexical Rules d. / ED / Japanese translation of Cost Budget Period Total Amount is incorrect. / “経費予算期間総計 or 経費・予算期間・総計” should be “経費予算期間金額合計 or 経費・予算期間・金額合計”
1 MB = Member body / NC = National Committee (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)
2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial
page 1 of 10
ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC electronic balloting commenting template/version 2012-03
Template for comments and secretariat observations / Date: 2 April 2013 / Document: ISO/IEC CD2 11179-51 / 2 / (3) / 4 / 5 / (6) / (7)
MB1 / Clause No./ Subclause No./ Annex (e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/ Figure/Table/Note (e.g. Table 1) / Type of com-ment2 / Comment (justification for change) by the MB / Proposed change by the MB / Secretariat observations on each comment submitted
GB 01 / General / ed / There are a number of instances where "Error! Reference source not found" appears on our copy, for example in headers and footers and the main title. / Sort out automatic referencing.
GB 02 / Forward / ed / The list of parts of 11179 might be incorrect as the future of Parts 2 and 4 are still to be agreed. / Amend as necessary.
GB 03 / Introduction / ed / The opening sentence could be more explicit. / Amend to read "This part of ISO/IEC 11179 contains both principles and rules."
GB 04 / 1 (Scope) / Para 1, Line 1 / ed / The derivation of the terms concept, data element concept, etc originate. / Add "defined in part 3 of this International Standard" after "the following items."
GB 05 / 3 (Terms and definitions) / ed / It is not necessary to include 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.10 and 3.21 since these are all copied from 11179-3 and the text of clause 3 says that the terms and definitions in other parts of11179 all apply. However, it could be argued that they make this part more readable as a stand-alone document by their inclusion. / Consider removing these definitions.
GB 06 / 3.1 / te / Registered item is not defined. / If this definition is to be kept, add a definition of registered item.
GB 07 / 3.12 / te / Is this an appropriate definition of object for this standard? Would a definition that is more closely aligned with an object in object oriented analysis and design be more appropriate? / Consider revising the definition.
GB 08 / 3.17 / te / Representation class is not defined. / Add a definition of representation class.
GB 09 / 3.23 Note / te / The term data model is ambiguous. It sometimes means the way that data is represented in a database (for example, the relational data model) and at other times it means the representation as a model of the information to be stored in an information system for a particular universe of discourse (for example, the XYZ Company data model, which may be represented as an IDEF1X model, as a UML class diagram,etc). / Disambiguate the meaning. It is assumed that the second meaning is what is required. If so, the term "information model" may be preferable.
GB 10 / 8.1.1 / Line 1 / ed / There is a reference to clause 4, which is the conformance clause of this standard. Is clause 5 the correct reference, or is the reference to clause 4 of a different standard? / Amend reference.
GB 11 / Annex A / A.1, Line 1 / ed / There is a reference to clause 8. Is clause 9 the correct reference? / Amend reference.
GB 12 / Annex A / A.5, Table / ed / On the odd numbered pages the right hand edge of the table is missing. / Adjust table.
GB 13 / Annex A / A.5, Table, last row / ed / There are some strange lines over the first two columns. / None provided.
GB 14 / Annex B / Line 1 / ed / There is a reference to clause 8. Is clause 9 the correct reference? / Amend reference.
GB 15 / Annex B / ed / The Korean characters have not printed on the pdf copy provided. / None provided.
1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)