From rinehuls@access.digex.net Fri Jul 3 17:53:35 1998 Received: from access5.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access5.digex.net [205.197.245.196]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA07106 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:53:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA09395 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" X-Sender: rinehuls@access5.digex.net Reply-To: "william c. rinehuls" To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: SC22 N2755 - Summary of Voting of PDTR 14369 Registration - LISS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII __________________ 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: rinehuls@access.digex.net ___________ 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 _______________________________