Major | Interesting work. Thanks for the opportunity to review. Here are a few things I noticed as I read through the doc. The definition of Scale in Table 3-3 appears to be incorrect. Scale is defined there as the Mantissa that specifies the size of the Resource Unit and the example given states that megawatts has a mantissa of 6. Assuming we are working in base 10, the prefix mega- refers to the 6th power of 10 (10^6), where 6 is the EXPONENT of the number, not the mantissa. In standard scientific notation, mantissa refers to the digits without the 10^n part. Therefore, the definition of scale should be the EXPONENT of the size prefix (mega or 6 in the example), not the mantissa (the fractional part or precision of the number). Nevertheless, the effect of the definition of scale is correct: the example for Size (5 kW), with the explanation that the 5 is the size and 3 is the scale, makes sense, since the scale part of this is kilo-â (10^3) and thus the exponent (NOT the mantissa) of 5 x 10^3 is 3. But why is Size constrained to be an integer? Why not allow a Product to have a fractional Size (for example "0.5 MW") rather than requiring this to be expressed as 500 kW (or even 500000 W)? I'm not sure that I understand the example of Stream Payload Mantissa in Table 5-1, but it seems to contain the same confusion between mantissa and exponent. The definition of Quantity Scale in Table 6-2 definitely confuses mantissa and exponent. |