From: [email-masked] (Koreaki Fujimura)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 11:45:21 JST

Subject: Japan's ballot on ISO/IEC 12087-3 /DAM1

Dear Colleagues,

The following is the formal response from JISC to the voting
on ISO/IEC 12087-3 /DAM1 terminating 1994-08-10.

Regards,

Koreaki Fujimura

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

Title:  Japan's comments on Draft Amendment ISO/IEC 12087-3 /DAM 1 -- Type 
        definition, scoping, and logical views for image interchange
facility,
        accompanying to its disapproval vote

Source: National Body of Japan

The National Body of Japan disapproves Draft Amendment ISO/IEC 12087-3 /DAM
1 with the following comments.  Even if the comments are accepted, Japan
requests another DAM ballot because the expected amount of change is fairly
large.

1) Global:

Japan disapproves this DAM because it will make invalid in a short time some
application systems and data files which is developed as to conform to the
original standard.

A statement in the disposition of comments on the PDAM (SC24 N 994) --

      A restructuring of IIF according to the new capabilities introduced
      by this Amendment is possible but not necessary: this was the reason
      why the new capabilities were introduced in form of an Amendment to
      IPI Part 3.

is wrong because

     A) Generally, when an amendment to a standard is published, the
original 
        standard will not remain and only the amended standard is
        authorized,

     B) Some changes in this DAM break the upward compatibility of
        previous data files.  For instance, the original syntax entity

                Profile ::= IA5String DEFAULT "full profile"
                
        is changed to 

                Profile ::= SEQUENCE {
                  conformance-profile [0] IMPLICIT INTEGER {
                    full-profile(1),
                    full-piks-profile(2),
                    colour-image-profile(3),
                    boolean-image-profile(4),
                  }                       DEFAULT  full-profile,
                  application-profile [1] IMPLICIT IA5String      OPTIONAL,
                  exemplified-profile [2] IMPLICIT SegmentTypeRef OPTIONAL
                }

        which apparently breaks down the upward compatibility,

            NOTE: We can not list up all the incompatible syntax entities 
            by the reason described in our comment No.3.

     C) An application system which utilizes the "foundation profile" or 
        "full PIKS profile" will become invalid after these profiles 
        are extended by this DAM which does not add any further 
        constraints to these profiles.

            NOTE: We can not present an alternative text to redefine these
            profiles as to assure identity after the change of syntax
            by the reason described in our comment No.3.

2) Global:

The expressions like "this Amendment" shall not be used in the text to
appear in an amended standard because of the nature of an amendment
described above.  Japan considers that these expressions can not be replaced
by a single term and it needs some restructuring of the whole draft.

3) Global:

A number of instructions in this DAM have already become invalid according
to the change of 12087-3 in IS drafting process.  It is impossible to list
up required changes in this ballot because the final version of 12087-3 is
not distributed to National Bodies.

Japan considers another DAM ballot shall begin after the final version of
12087-3 become accessible to National Bodies and the DAM is updated.

4) Missing material:

An instruction to change the paragraph in 12087-3 subclause 5.3 shall be
included in this DAM because the syntax rules in the DAM are not ordered in
prefix form.

5) Missing material:

An instruction to update 12087-3 Annex B (normative) shall be included in
this DAM.

6) Page 2, 5.1.2.2, Constraints on Topology and attributes of a Segment:

Explanation for "segment type" and "item-is-required" is not sufficient. 

It shall be explained systematically as to answer the following questions:

    1) what does it mean when it is used in high-level entities like
        'image-related-data' etc.?  Does it mean all its other components
        are completed by an application  even if explicitly specified?
        
    2) what does it mean when it is used in low-level entities like
        'look-up-table' etc. ?

    3) what is the difference between using "item-is-required" for an entity

        and not specifying that entity in a segment type ?

Anyway an example showing the use of "segment type" and "item-is-required"
is required.

7) Page 2, 5.1.2.3, 2nd paragraph:

There is no <X.500> standard in ISO.  Does it stand for 10031(DOAM)-
1(General model) and 10031-2(DOR)? 

8) Page 6 - 51, Syntax entities:

Numbers of new entities shall start from 901 because numbers like 7xx and
8xx are already used in 12087-3.

9) Page 8 - 51, Syntax entities:

Put the number of referred entities e.g.
     application-profile [1] IMPLICIT IA5String      OPTIONAL, -- No. 722
in the same way as 12087-3 does.

10) Page 8 - 51, Syntax entities:

The sentences 
        The 'item-is-required' component is useful in the specification 
        of a segment type
appearing in Semantics of some entities shall be changed to
        The 'item-is-required' component is usable in the specification 
        of a segment type
because the main usage of "useful" is for "advantageous" or "of good effect"
and "usable" is for "capable of being used".

11) Page 8 - 51, Syntax entities:

The sentences 
        If this option (item-is-required) is chosen in the specification
        of a segment type, an application can use, observing all existing 
        constraints, any other component of xxxx entity at the time 
        an IIF data stream is created or processed.
appearing in Semantics of some entities shall be changed to
        If this option (item-is-required) is chosen in the specification
        of a segment type, an application can complete, observing all
existing 
        constraints, the type and value of any other component of xxxx 
        entity at the time an IIF data stream is created or processed.
because the expression "use a component" is ambiguous.

12) Page 10, ContentsElement:

The production 
        ContentsElement ::= SEQUENCE {
          prolog [0] IMPLICIT SegmentProlog OPTIONAL, 
          body   [1] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE OF ContentsBody,
          epilog [2] IMPLICIT SegmentEpilog OPTIONAL  
        }
should be changed to 
        ContentsElement ::= CHOICE {
          SEQUENCE {
            body   [1] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE OF ContentsBody
          }
          SEQUENCE {
            prolog [0] IMPLICIT SegmentProlog,
            body   [1] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE OF ContentsBody,
            epilog [2] IMPLICIT SegmentEpilog   
          }  
        }
in order to assure the correspondence of prolog and epilog.

13) Page 33, SegmentProlog, Constraints:
    Page 38, ExpressionElement, Constraints:

The text "... the value of SegmentLabel(name-ID) entity shall be assigned by
the gateway ..." is hard to understand.  Does it mean a creator of the data
stream is not allowed to identify segments by mnemonics?  Does it mean that
all the IPI-IIF data shall be the output of the gateway?

14) Page 45, ExternalReference:

The entity "ExternalReference" is already defined as No.211 in 12087-3 and
it is recognized that there is a need for clear text addressing besides DOR
addressing.

15) Page 52, Annex A:

An amendment shall not have its own annex. This Annex shall be changed into
an instruction to add additional examples to 12087-3 Annex D: Examples of
IIf-DF images.