Subject: SC22 N2849 - Vote Summary on PDTR 14369 - LISS

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:30:55 -0500 (EST)

___________________ 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
N2849

TITLE:
Summary of Voting on PDTR 14369 - Information technology - Programming
languages, their environments and system software interfaces - Guidelines
for the Preparation of Language-Independent Service Specifications (LISS)

DATE ASSIGNED:		
1998-11-23

SOURCE:			
Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

BACKWARD POINTER:
N/A

DOCUMENT TYPE:
Summary of Voting

PROJECT NUMBER:
JTC 1.22.46

STATUS:
WG11 is requested to prepare a Disposition of Comments Report and make 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 N2761

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 summary __________

                      SUMMARY OF VOTING ON

Letter Ballot Reference No:  SC22 N2761
Circulated by:               JTC 1/SC22
Circulation Date:            1998-07-28
Closing Date:                1998-11-16 (extended to 1998-11-23)

SUBJECT:  PDTR 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 approval:

"P" Members supporting approval
       without comments                      11

"P" Members supporting approval
       with comments                          2

"P" Members not supporting approval           0

"P" Members abstaining                        3

"P" Members not voting                        6

"O" Members supporting approval
       without comments                       1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Action:

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 Austria was:  "Lack of
expert resources."  The comment accompanying the abstention vote from
France was:  "AFNOR abstains due to lack of resources."

The comments accompanying the affirmative votes from the United Kingdom
and the U.S.A. are attached.

_____________end of overall summary; beginning of detail summary______

                 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22  LETTER BALLOT SUMMARY

PROJECT NO:    JTC 1.22.46

SUBJECT:  PDTR Approval Balllot 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:  N2761           Ballot Document No:  N2761
Circulation Date:       1998-07-28      Closing Date: 1998-11-16
                                        Extended to:  1998-11-23
                                                              
Circulated To: SC22 P, O, L             Circulated By: Secretariat

                  SUMMARY OF VOTING AND COMMENTS RECEIVED

                     Approve  Disapprove Abstain Comments   Not Voting
'P' Members

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

'O' Members Voting

Korea Republic          (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )

______ end of summary; beginning of UK comments ___________________

From: Suzanne Davison <[email-masked]>

The UK approves the draft with editorial comments.

Editorial

3.1.12 - This definition still contains the undesirable and unnecessary
phrase 'In this Technical Report, the term "procedure" ...'. Replace
the definition by 'A subprogram which may or may not return a value.'
In the note, Replace 'Primarily for historical reasons, some' by 'Some'.

11.3 - There is a very bad widow` 'tatype' at the top of page 33. This
would never happen in Latex, but in Word, use the option 'keep lines
together' (for whole document, toggle a box in Format + Paragraph +
Text Flow).

17 - In various places, the text reads 'may imply revision'; I prefer
'may require revision'.`

17.1.10 - 'may introduce a change the behaviour of an implementation'
lacks the word 'in', but should be deleted because 17.1.x is a list of
the 'Kinds of change ...'.

Annex B.2 mapping  - Replace 'in general' by LISS'.

Annex B.2 - The definition for Z is missing.

_____________ end of UK comments; beginning of USA comments _________

From [email-masked]

The U.S. votes YES on the approval of PDTR 14369, Information technology -
Programming Languages, their environments and system software interfaces -
Guidelines for the preparation of language-independent service
specifications (LISS), with the following comments:
 
 Item:      USA-01
 Reference: 3.1.11, note
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Does not cover return of results, as 3.1.18 note does.
 Proposal:  After "provider," add "and by a service provider when
 preparing results  for a service user,".
 
 Item:      USA-02
 Reference: 3.1.15, note 2
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Text indent mismatched to Note 1.
 Proposal:  Match text indent to that of Note 1.
 
 Item:      USA-03
 Reference: 3.1.19 (2)
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Mismatched quotation indicators.
 Proposal:  Replace '`zed"' with '"zed"'.
 
 Item:      USA-04
 Reference: 4.1, paragraph 3 "Between...", sentence 2 "The service..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Grammatical misuse
 Proposal:  Replace "and any addition" by "and any additional"
 
 Item:      USA-05
 Reference: 4.1, para.4 "This distinction...", sent.3 "The service..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "and again and" confusing.
 Proposal:  Replace "and again and" by "and again".
 
 Item:      USA-06
 Reference: 4.1, para.6 "In summary,", last sentence "Still more..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Normal English word order preferable here.
 Proposal:  Replace "Still more important is not to assume" by "It is
 still more important not to assume"
 
 Item:      USA-07
 Reference: 4.3, para.5 "In the more...", sent.2 "That environment..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Sentence clumsy
 Proposal:  Replace sentence with "That environment may require invocations
 of the service to be expressed in more meaningful terms, not limited to
 the data transmitted to it and the results expected from it." 
 
 Item:      USA-08
 Reference: 4.3, para.5 "In the more...", note following, sent.1.
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Clumsy grammar "is in the"
 Proposal:  Replace "is in the" by "involves"
 
 Item:      USA-09
 Reference: 4.3, para.5 "In the more...", note following, sent.2.
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "the" needed
 Proposal:  Replace "is use of" by "is the use of"
 
 Item:      USA-10
 Reference: 4.3, para.6 "Both the simple...", sent.2 "A 'language...".
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Interjection ", of course," inappropriate to normative text
 Proposal:  Delete ", of course,"
 
 Item:      USA-11
 Reference: 4.3, para.6 "Both the simple...", sent.3 "A good...".
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "Standard" should be plural here
 Proposal:  Replace "official standard" by "official standards"
 
 Item:      USA-12
 Reference: 4.3, para.7, sent.1 "ISO/IEC..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Commas needed to set off title of TR 10182
 Proposal:  Replace "ISO/IEC...bindings" by "ISO/IEC TR 10182, Guidelines
 for language bindings," 
 
 Item:      USA-13
 Reference: 4.3, para.8, sent.1 "A way..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Too many "'that's"
 Proposal:  Replace "A way of looking...useful is that of" by "A useful
 way of looking at language independence is by"
 
 Item:      USA-14
 Reference: 4.3, para.8, note "The representational...", and elsewhere.
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Format of internal cross-references disturbs the reader
 Proposal:  Replace "Clause 4.5.1...below." by "subclause 4.5.1 below."
 or by "subclause 4.5.1, Representational assumptions, below." 
 ---> The approach chosen here should be extended to similar references
 throughout the document, using "clause" or "subclause" as appropriate by
 ISO editorial standards. The present format, with large "tabs" between
 clause/subclause numbers and titles, is unacceptable.

 Item:      USA-15
 Reference: 4.5, para.1 "Producing...", sent. 3 "In particular..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "it may making" not clear
 Proposal:  Replace "it may making" by "it may depend on"
 
 Item:      USA-16
 Reference: 4.5, para.1 "Producing...", sent. 4 "Languages that..."
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "cater for" not clear
 Proposal:  Replace "cater for" by "cater to"
 
 Item:      USA-17
 Reference: 4.5, para.2 "Such problems...", sent. 1
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "not an existing service" not clear
 Proposal:  Replace "is not an existing service" by "is a new one to be
 developed"
 
 Item:      USA-18
 Reference: 4.5.1, para.3 "Representational...", sentence 1
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Punctuation needs fixing
 Proposal:  Replace "level, they" by "level, but" and "too: for example" by
 "too; for example"
 
 Item:      USA-19
 Reference: 4.5.1, para.3 "Representational...", sentence 2
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: Punctuation needs fixing
 Proposal:  Replace "relevant: the...datatype, because" by "relevant;
 the...datatype because"
 
 Item:      USA-20
 Reference: 4.5.2, para.1 "Representational...", sent.3 "Here a"
 Qualifier: Editorial
 Rationale: "Here" misleading
 Proposal:  Replace "Here a simple example is assuming that" by "A simple
 example is an assumption that" 
 
___________________ end of SC22 N2849 ___________________________________