| 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 |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Netherlands |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Norway |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| United Kingdom |
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
| United States |
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
| O-member (for comment only)
|
| Turkey |
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
In section 4, the notation for "unknown whether character x is in collection A or not" should be "unknown(x, A)".
On page 2, in the last Note on this page, the reference is missing from the text.
In section 7, believe the first word, "Some" should be "See".
(1) Reference to the second edition of XML Schema
Part 2.
(2) Introduce an annex for the use of CRVL from
Schematron.
(3) Kernels and hulls should be more clearly
presented in Section 5.
(4) The intention of each operator should be
presented in prose.
(5) The semantics of the alt operator is
doubtful. We propose that
a) in(x, A B) hold when
- in(x, A) and not notin(x, B), or
- in(x, B) and not notin(x, A)
and
b) unknown(x, A B) hold when
- unknown(x, A) and unknown(x, B),
- in(x, A) and notin(x, B), or
- in(x, B) and notin(x, A)
(6) When dereferencing the uri of a ref element
causes a network error, what should happen? We propose that the
processor should report an error and should be allowed to continue
normal processing by assuming that "unknown" holds.
(7) The intention of named collections is
unclear. Are they represented by CRVL schemas that can be obtained
by dereferencing http-URIs? Or, are they allowed to be imaginary?
In particular, how do we describe "iso-8859-1" (to be precise, the
set of characters in this charset) in CRVL?
(8) Introduce CRVL processors and define
conformance.
|
National Committee
|
Clause/ Subclause
|
Paragraph Figure/ Table
|
Type of comment
(General/ Technical/Editorial)
|
COMMENTS
|
Proposed change
|
OBSERVATIONS OF THE
SECRETARIAT
on each comment submitted
|
|
Turkish
|
4
|
1st and 3rd paragraphs
|
Editorial
|
in(x,A) has two different meanings. I
believe this a typo.
|
Make the third one "unknown(x,A)" and keep
its description as it is.
|
|
|
Turkish
|
7.2
|
1st paragraph
|
Technical
|
the assertion of
"in(x,<hull>A</hull>) does not hold" may not
necessarily hold. It does not seem to be a sound statement.
Especially, given that in(x,<kernel>A</kernel>) holds,
in(x,<hull>A</hull>) must hold.
|
in(x,<hull>A</hull>) when
in(x,A)
|
|
|
Turkish
|
7.2
|
3rd paragraph
|
Technical
|
the
assertion of
"unknown(x,<kernel>A</kernel>) when
in(x, A) or unknown(x, A)" does not
make sense. wheneever the predicate in(x,A) holds,
in(x,<hull>A</hull>) should hold as well, but not at
the same time
unknown(x,<kernel>A</kernel>).
|
unknown(x,<hull>A</hull>)
otherwise, i.e., unknown(x,A).
|
|
|
Turkish
|
7.3
|
2nd paragraph
|
Technical
|
the
assertion of "notin(x,<kernel>A</kernel>)
does not hold"
may not necessarily hold. It
does not seem to be a sound statement.
|
notin(x,<kernel>A</kernel>) when
in(x,A) does not hold.
|
|
|
Turkish
|
7.3
|
3rd paragraph
|
Technical
|
the
assertion of
"unknown(x,<kernel>A</kernel>) when
notin(x, A) or unknown(x, A)" is not
sound because whenever notin(x,A) becomes true
unknown(x,<kernel>A</kernel>) does not
hold.
|
unknown(x,<kernel>A</kernel>)
when unknown(x, A).
|
|
|
Turkish
|
7.7
|
|
Technical
|
the def of 7.7 offers no difference from
that of 7.4.
|
revoke the article 7.7 from the
draft.
|
|
CD not sufficiently complete
