Ack. Why do I always catch my flubs after pressing the send button? Ninth comment should read:
[1229, 1272, 1351 & 1367] - Section 7 changed from the convention of "Super Classes" used in Sections 5 and 6, to "Base classes". I recommend we stay consistent with "Super Classes".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 3:10 PM
> To:
> Subject: [regrep] RIMv2.6 Review, Sections 6-7
>
>
> I found one I missed earlier on Figure 2. The rest of the
> comments cover Sections 6 & 7.
> Have a good weekend everyone!
> -Paul
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> [583] Figure 2 note attached to "RegistryObject" has
> spelling/truncation error in the forth line for "independent".
>
> [1117, 1129] - Following convention, put quotes around letter
> (a) to result in: ...Association "a"...
>
> [1130] - Following convention, capitalize association to
> result in: ...Association "a"...
>
> [1159] - Association attribute summary includes attributes
> for "isConfirmedBySourceOwner" and "isConfirmedByTargetOwner"
> that should be deleted.
>
> [1167] - Starts off, "The following table lists canonical
> association types". However, there is no table. Believe the
> sentence should be removed, and the next sentence changed
> from, "These canonical association types..." to, "The
> canonical association types...".
>
> [1177] - Insert before the method summary table a subsection
> "6.6.5 Method Summary
> In addition to its attributes, the Association class also
> defines the following methods."
>
> [1200] - Sorry if this comment seems overly sensitive. But
> while I get a kick out of the CPP names in figure 8, I want
> to make sure we don't draw unnecessary negative reactions
> from a supportive industry. Sally, I'm sure automotive types
> have a good sense of humor and can find humor in industry
> caricatures, but is there any chance that someone could take
> umbrage with the figure? Particularly, "gasGuzzlerInc" and
> "yuppyEuroAutoInc"?
>
> [1211] - This might just be a display issue, but in Figure 9,
> the "ClassificationNode" relationship for "parent" should be "0..1".
>
> [1229, 1272, 1351 & 1367] - Change from use of "Super
> Classes" in Sections 5 and 6, to "Base classes". I recommend
> we stay consistent with "Super Classes".
>
> [1260] - Change the sentence from, "This following
> canonical..." to, "The following canonical...".
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
>
>
