TEP 1.1 - TAB-1325: Inadequate citation of normative references

The normative references [xlink], [EDXL-CIQ], [EDXL-CT], [EDXL-GSF], [EDXL-HAVE], [EDXL-RM], and [EDXL-SitRep] are inadequately cited at various places in the draft.

For example:

[xlink] appears once under the definition of Profile, without brackets to indicate it is a normative reference and without reference to any particular section of XLink to which conformance is required. Do you mean that an implementer of your standard must conform to all of XLink?

Where else are XLink attributes discussed in this draft?

[EDXL-CIQ] appears under 3.2.1 Common Types both as a namespace and as a defined in reference. To be a defined in reference, it should read: (bold face) [EDXL-CIQ] xal:AddressType.

BTW, since EDXL-CIQ is a draft, it would be greatly improved if element definitions/models had section numbers to provide more precise referencing.

[EDXL-CT] appears under 3.2.1 Common Types as a defined in reference. To be a defined in reference, it should read: (bold face) [EDXL-CT] 2.2.1 Simple Types.

This is only an example, [EDXL-CT] appears approximately 18 times incorrectly.

[EDXL-GSF] appears under 3.2.1 Common Types as both a namespace and a defined in reference. To be a defined in reference, it should read: (bold face) [EDXL-GSF] 3.1.1 EDXL GML Simple Features Elements and Types.

That is the best you can do for EDXL-GSF, considering the lack of section numbers in the reference.

[EDXL-HAVE] when cited in the text should appear as (bold face) [EDXL-HAVE]

[EDXL-RM] when cited in the text should appear as (bold face) [EDXL-RM]

[EDXL-SitRep] when cited in the text should appear as (bold face) [EDXL-SitRep]