-
Type: Bug
-
Status: New
-
Priority: Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.0
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: Public reviews
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:
Conformance
The conformance section is deficient in several aspects:
(although there is progress since similar comments on a very similar conformance section last year for UBL/NDR Envelope)
- The conformance section should clearly include (numbered ) "conformance clause(s)" (TC process: "Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance clauses,...")
- Imprecise reference to normative content: it is not quite explicit what a Rule is. The C.Clause should refer explicitly to either section numbers/titles, or to a list of rule IDs, or to both.
- we should not need to condition the conf clause requirements by the “context for which the user is utilizing these rules” as this leaves the door open to any interpretation of the word "context", not easy to assess in a test suite later on. The rules themselves should include their "context filter".
(for more details on conf clause best practices, see conf clause guidelines http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html )