Subject: SC22 N2755 - Summary of Voting of PDTR 14369 Registration - LISS

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT)

__________________ beginning of title page ___________________________
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A. (ANSI)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2755

TITLE:
Summary of Voting on PDTR Registration for PDTR 14369: Information
technology - Programming languages, their environments and system software
interfaces - Guidelines for the preparation of language independent
service specificiations (LISS)

DATE ASSIGNED:
1998-07-03

SOURCE:
Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

BACKWARD POINTER:
N/A

DOCUMENT TYPE:
Summary of Voting

PROJECT NUMBER:
JTC 1.22.46

STATUS:
PDTR 14369 has been registered.  WG11 is requested to prepare a
Disposition of Comments Report and a recommendation on the further
processing of the PDTR.

ACTION IDENTIFIER:
FYI to SC22 Member Bodies
ACT to WG11

DUE DATE:
N/A

DISTRIBUTION:
Text

CROSS REFERENCE:
SC22 N2658

DISTRIBUTION FORM:
Def

Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA 22153 USA
Telephone:  +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax:  +1 (703) 912-2973
email:  [email-masked]

___________ end of title page; beginning of overall summary _________

                          SUMMARY OF VOTING ON

Letter Ballot Reference No:   SC22 N2658
Circulated by:                JTC 1/SC22
Circulation Date:             1998-03-13
Closing Date:                 1998-06-30

SUBJECT:  PDTR Registration Ballot for PDTR 14369: Information technology
          - Programming languages, their environments and system software
          interfaces - Guidelines for the preparation of
          language-independent service specifications (LISS)
____________________________________________________________________________________
The following responses have been received on the subject of registration:

"P" Members supporting approval              
     without comment                         8

"P" Members supporting approval
     with comment                            2

"P" Members not supporting approval          0

"P" Members abstaining:                      3

"P" Members not voting:                      9

"O" Members supporting approval
     without comment                         1

"O" Members abstaining:                      2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Secretariat Action:

PDTR 14369 has been registered.

WG11 is requested to prepare a Disposition of Comments Report and make a
recommendation on the further processing of the PDTR.

The comment accompanying the abstention vote from France was:  "Lack of
resources".    The comment accompanying the abstention vote from Germany
was:  "There is no national rapporteur for WG11."   The comment
accompanying the abstention vote from Sweden was:  "Due to lack of
expertise".

The comments accompanying the affirmative votes from Japan and the United
Kingdom are attached.

__________ end of overall summary; beginning of detail summary ________

                     JC1/SC22  LETTER BALLOT SUMMARY

PROJECT NO:    JTC 1.22.46

SUBJECT:  PDTR Registration Ballot for PDTR 14369: Information technology -
          Programming languages, their environments and system software
          interfaces - Guidelines for the preparation of
          language-independent service specifications (LISS) 
          
Reference Document No:  N2658           Ballot Document No:  N2658
Circulation Date:       1998-03-13      Closing Date:  1998-06-30 
                                                              
Circulated To: SC22 P, O, L  Members    Circulated By: Secretariat

                  SUMMARY OF VOTING AND COMMENTS RECEIVED

                     Approve  Disapprove  Abstain Comments   Not Voting
'P' Members

Australia              (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
Austria                ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Belgium                (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
Brazil                 ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)    
Canada                 ( )      ( )        (X)       ( )       ( )
China                  ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Czech Republic         (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
Denmark                (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
Egypt                  ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Finland                (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
France                 ( )      ( )        (X)       (X)       ( )
Germany                ( )      ( )        (X)       (X)       ( )
Ireland                ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Japan                  (X)      ( )        ( )       (X)       ( )
Netherlands            (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
Norway                 ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Romania                ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Russian Federation     ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
Slovenia               ( )      ( )        ( )       ( )       (X)
UK                     (X)      ( )        ( )       (X)       ( )
Ukraine                (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
USA                    (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )

'O' Members Voting

Korea Republic         (X)      ( )        ( )       ( )       ( )
Portugal               ( )      ( )        (X)       ( )       ( )
Sweden                 ( )      ( )        (X)       (X)       ( )

____________ end of detail summary; beginning of Japan comments_____

(X) We support this registration with the attached comments.

             National Body: Japan
             Date: 1998-06-19
             Signature: KATSUHIKO KAKEHI

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Comments on ISO/IEC PDTR 14369:1998

Title: Information technology - Programming Languages, their
      environments and system software interfaces - 
      Guidelines for the preparation of language-independent
      service specifications (LISS)

Introduction, Principles, third bullet (sixth paragraph), second line
     "its is possible" should read "it is possible".

2.
     "ISO 2382" should be added to the list.

2.   "TR 10176:1991" should be changed to "TR 10176:1998".  The revised
     version of TR 10176 has already been approved as DIS, and is awaiting
     publication.  It will be published before LISS is finally approved.
   
3.1.12
     The closing parenthesis at the end of the paragraph should be deleted.

3.1.15, Notes 2
     "no other function that to provide its service" should read
     "no other function than to provide its service".

3.2.1 (second one, LIPC)
     Section number should be changed from "3.2.1" to "3.2.2".

4.4, first paragraph, second line
     "specifying the how the service" should read "specifying how the
     service".

5.1.4, Note, first line
     "involved it achieving" should read "involved in achieving".

5.3.2.4, Note 3, first line
     "language toLIPC" should read "language to LIPC".

6.2, first paragraph, first line
     "guideline 7.1" seems incorrect.  The correct number would be
     "guideline 6.1".

7.4
     "ISO 2382" should be replaced by a full description, like
     "ISO 2382:19xx xxxxxxxxxxxx", throughout the section (including
     the title).

7.5, Note
     "ISO 2382" should be replaced by a full description.

7.5, Note
     "all reference terms" should read "all referenced terms".

8.2.3, fourth (last) paragraph, second line
     "(and some concurrent system) system" should read "(and some
     concurrent) system".

8.3, Note, first line
     The first word of the sentence is not properly indented.

9.1.1, fifth paragraph, second line
     "they be deal with" should read "they be dealt with".

9.3.2, Note
     "in the special case where is the pre-defined service is a slave
     service"
     should read "in the special case where the pre-defined service is a
     slave service".

12.1, Note 5, first line
     "an language-independent" should read "a language-independent".

12.3.2, Note 5, second line
     Remove parentheses surrounding "out".

12.4.4
     "ISO/IEC 11578" should be replaced by "ISO/IEC 11578:1996"
     throughout the section (including the title).

12.5
     The title indicates that a specific guideline is given in this
     section, but the section seems to be devoted to general discussion.

13., second paragraph, third line
     "an language-independent" should read "a language-independent".

13.2.1, [b]
     Insert a period at the end of the description.

13.2.1, [c]
     Insert a period at the end of the description.

13.2.2, [c]
     "Note: ..." should be placed as a new paragraph, starting with
     "Note- ".

13.2.2, [j]
     "Note: ..." should be placed as a new paragraph, starting with
     "Note- ".

13.2.2, [k]
     "Note: ..." should be placed as a new paragraph, starting with
     "Note- ".

13.2.2, [l]
     "Note; ..." should be placed as a new paragraph, starting with 
     "Note- ".

14.3.1, Notes 2
     "Omitting features may be unavoidable through" should read "Omitting
     features may be unavoidable though".

14.3.3, Note 2, first line
     The title of ISO/IEC TR 10182:1993 should be given.

16.3, 8), Note, first line
     The first word of the sentence is not properly indented.

16.4, Note 1, first line
     "for purposed of quick reference" should read "for purposes of quick
     reference".

17.1.9
     Nothing is described in this section.

17.1.10
     Nothing is described in this section.

A, title
     The word "(informative)" should be written just after "Annex A".

B, title
     The word "(informative)" should be given.

B.1, LISS
     A comma should follow "TR 14369".

B.2, helper function (LIA), third line
     "some implementation defined helper" should read "some
     implementation-defined helper".

B.2, mapping
     Source identification is not given.

B.2, procedures (LISS)
     The last closing parenthesis should be deleted.

B.2, signature (of a function or operation) (LIA), sixth line
     Remove hyphen between "integer_" and "overflow".

B.2, variable
     Source identification is not given.

____________ end of Japan comments; beginning of UK comments _______

The UK vote on the above PDTR is 

APPROVAL with comments as set out below:  

UK comments on PDTR 14369 - LISS - SC22 N2658

1) The annexes are not listed in the contents

2) Note that Z in LIA means the complex numbers, and elsewhere 
   is the name of a formal specification language.

3) ISO/IEC 14977: 1996 Extended BNF is a (simple) formal specification
language and should be included in the references and clause 8 -Formal
specification languages.

   Suitable text could be based on the following:
   
   ISO/IEC 14977: 1996 Extended BNF.

   A syntactic metalanguage is a notation for defining the syntax of a
language by a number of rules.  The concepts are well known, but many
slightly different notations are in use.

   A syntactic metalanguage can also be sensibly used whenever a clear
formal description and definition is required, e.g. the format for
references in papers submitted to a journal, or the instructions for
performing a complicated task.

   Extended BNF (ISO/IEC 14977:1996) is general-purpose, and its adoption
will save time by avoiding the need to choose one of several suggested
notations, which must then be amended to overcome its limitations.

4) ISO/IEC Directives Part 3 (Rules for the structure and drafting of
International Standards, 1997) says in its scope (page 12) "This part of
the ISO/IEC Directives specifies rules for the structure and drafting of
documents intended to become International Standards, Technical Reports
or Guides, referred to hereinafter collectively as standards unless
otherwise necessary."

   Clause 6.3.1 Terms and definitions states, ``[...] The following 
   introductory wording, modified as appropriate shall be used:
   
     "For the purposes of this International Standard, the terms 
     and definitions given in ... and the following apply."''

5) ISO/IEC Directives Part 3 (Rules for the structure and drafting of
International Standards, 1997) makes similar requirements for
references in 6.2.2. The 'References' clause should start:

     Normative references

     The following normative documents contain provisions which, through 
     reference in this text, constitute provisions of ISO/IEC PDTR
     14369.  

     For dated references, subsequent amendments to, or revisions
     of, any of these publications do not apply. However, parties to 
     agreements based on this Technical Report are encouraged to
     investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of
     the normative documents below. For undated references, the 
     latest edition of the normative document referred to applies.  
     Members of IEC and ISO maintain registers of currently valid 
     International Standards.

6) Definitions --Delete ``In this Technical Report, "xxx" means the'' 
   and similar phrases in several places.

ADDITIONAL MINOR UK COMMENTS IN ISO/IEC DTR 14369

The following comments are in page order, not significance.

1. In Clause 3 delete the use of "In this Technical Report".

2. Clause no 3.2.1 occurs twice.

3. Clause 4.3 last para before Note. This could do with re-writing as it
doesn't explain what the abstraction levels are.

4. 5.1.2 refers to "time constraints", but there aren't any specific
guidelines in this area. Should there be?

5. 5.2.1.1 typical assumptions (and elsewhere, especially 5.2.3 for
binding methods, 5.3.1.2 for terminology) It would be very helpful if
some practical examples could be given.

6. 5.3.4.1 needs some expansion and also it's not clear what the
differences are to 5.3.2.

7. In 6.2 "guideline 7.1" should be "guideline 6.1".

8. 7.3 should probably include a note of reference to LID/LIA/LIPC.

9. 8.1 Does ASN.1 have any relevance here (perhaps only in reference to
service syntax and bindings)?

10. 8.2 should include a reference to the new ISO/IEC 14977 Syntactic
Metalanguage - Extended BNF and its relevance.

11. 9.2.2 Note 2 "to ensure that implementors understand what is
required" seems to conflict with objective.

12. 9.2.3 Note 2 The need for this note is unclear.

13. 9.2.3 Is there a need to distinguish LI-specific services from non-LI
ones, as guaranteed interoperability with LI-specified ones may(?) be
more difficult?

14. 9.3.2 the meaning of the Note is unclear.

15. 10.2.1 what is the impact here of multiple instantiations of the same
service?

16. 10.3 Some consideration of the serialization impacts of some internal
processes as a result of the processing of multiple service requests
concurrently may be needed here.

17. 11.3 Note 1 should expand on the implications with regard to
subsequent revisions of the specification when disallowed values may now
be valid.

18. 11.4 discusses "the operations on its data values". Is this really
needed, since aren't these just the details of the service specification?
Also why do we need to consider "further operations"?

19. 12. Shouldn't there be a guideline to say that all data which might
be shared between caller and callee should be explicitly passed across
the interface?

20. 12. Should there be guidelines about naming standards, e.g.
uppercase, perhaps other restricted character sets?

21. 12.3.2 Note 4 para 2. Isn't this the preferred option and therefore
stated as such?

22. 12.4.4 and 12.5 Usage of RPC, ISO/IEC 11578 RPC, ISO/IEC 11578
Remote Procedure Call and references to other standards, e.g. LIPC,
variesthroughout the document and should be tidied up

23. 14.1.3 and 14.3.2 Shouldn't there be a query mechanism recommended,
so that users and callers can determine at run-time what options are
actually available?

24. 15. 16.1 should be "15.1 and 15.2", 16.2 should be 15.3.

25. 17.1.9 and 17.1.10 need some text.

____________________  end of SC22 N2755 _______________________________