[Requests] Comment / Correction in each Volume of the OGC CDB Candidate Standard

David Graham david.graham at cae.com
Tue Apr 19 17:31:35 EDT 2016


PART A


1. Evaluator:
        David Graham
        CAE Inc.
        David.graham at cae.com

2. Submission:

●       OGC 15-120r2 : Volume 0:  OGC CDB Core Primer (Informative).
●       OGC 15-113: Volume 1:  OGC CDB Core Standard: Model and Physical Data Store Structure.
●       OGC 16-005: Volume 2:  OGC CDB Core Model and Physical Structure Annexes (Informative).
●       OGC 15-112: Volume 3:  OGC CDB Terms and Definitions (Normative).
●       OGC 16-070: Volume 4:  OGC CDB Best Practice use of Shapefiles for Vector Data Storage (Informative).
●       OGC 16-004: Volume 5:  OGC CDB Radar Cross Section (RCS) Models (Best Practice Informative).
●       OGC 16-009: Volume 6:  OGC CDB Rules for Encoding Data using OpenFlight (Informative).
●       OGC 16-010: Volume 7:  OGC CDB Data Model Guidance (Informative).
●       OGC 16-011: Volume 8:  OGC CDB Spatial Reference System Guidance (Informative).
●       OGC 16-006: Volume 10:  OGC CDB Implementation Guidance (Informative).
●       OGC 16-007r1: Volume 11:  OGC CDB Core Standard Conceptual Model (Normative)
●       OGC 16- 003: Volume 12:  OGC CDB Navaids Attribution and Navaids Attribution Enumeration Values (Informative)



PART B


1. Requirement: [General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: [Front matter / preface]


3. Criticality: [Editorial]


4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Each of the candidate standards documents in this package contains a version of this statement in the preface / front matter:

For ease of editing and review, the standard has been separated into 12 Volumes, one of which is a schema repository.

Recommended change:

For ease of editing and review, the standard has been separated into 12 Volumes and a schema repository.

Justification:

There are, in fact, 12 Volumes AND a schema repository.  The submitter of this comment wishes to apologize to the document editor, who correctly stated the volume count, only to have the statement made incorrect by an editorial review of and change by the SWG Chair whose education temporarily caused him to NOT account for the concept of “Volume 0”.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160419/bdf5be74/attachment.html>


More information about the Requests mailing list