RIM 3.0 Comments (Cure for Cabin Fever?)

Here are some comments on RIM 3.0, version "Working Draft 01, 04 January, 2005" (which I 
believe is still the 

latest version that has been 
distributed to the TC). Apologies if any have already been offered by others. 
I've also 

placed a general category in 
()'s after each line, for prioritization - so items that have the word "meaning" 
or 

"accuracy" in 
their category may be considered higher 
priority than - for example - those labeled 
"Readbility":

 

-          
Line 363 (Readability): 
Expand SAML V2.0 “ECP” abbreviation

-          
Line 363 (Readability): 
Expand Liberty Alliance “PAOS” abbreviation

-          
Line 367 (Grammar): “Instances of such content…” 
– change to “Instances of such content are 
referred to as RepositoryItems"

-          
Line 369 (Concept meaning): 
“Standardized metadata” – do we mean the metadata MODEL itself, or the contents? 
I believe we mean the model, which is the RIM. The contents (e.g. format of 
RegistryObject description values) may or may not be standardized, depending on 
an organization’s usage. Applies also to line 
384.

-          
Line 370 (Grammar): “Instances of such metdata…” – 
change to “Instances of such metadata are 
referred to as RegistryObjects"

-          
Line 372 (Spelling): 
Metaphore is misspelled 

-          
Line 388 (Grammar): “within a canonical” – remove 
“a”

-          
Line 396 (Readability): Recommend considering 
adding a short description of each classification scheme (e.g. “Defines 
normative Association values…”). Also, shouldn’t this table be 
labeled?

-          
Line 406 (Readability): Recommend citing one 
example here of a composed object (e.g. a Classification 
instance)

-          
Line 415 (Readability): Recommend adding a short reference 
to/description of the Identifiable class prior to Figure 2, since it is at the 
top (even though there is a description in the box to the left of it in the 
figure), the significance of it being where it is, and why some classes in 
Figure 1 do not appear here (i.e. why they do not need to be identified via an 
id attribute – ex: PostalAddress)

-          
Figure 2 (Accuracy): Box to left of RegistryObject 
states that “classes in the model below are referred to as core information 
model classes”, yet the indication of such classes is only on the right of that 
row (under ExternalIdentifier and ExtrinsicObject). 

-          
Figure 2 (Accuracy): Shouldn’t this figure also contain 
the Access Control Information Model?

-          
Line 430 (Grammar): “The remainder of this document will 
be describing…” – change to “The remainder 
of this document will describe...”

 

Kind Regards,

Joseph Chiusano

Booz Allen Hamilton

Strategy and Technology Consultants to 
the World