Subject: CGM Am 2

From: AMMumford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 15:28:20 BST

To: WG6/CGM Rapporteur Group, SC24

From: Anne Mumford, CGM Rapporteur

The text below contains the draft responses and instructions to the 
editor for CGM DAm 2 ballot.

All comments except those from Austria were addressed at the 
Bordeaux meting. Those from Austria have been discussed by the CGM 
Rapporteur Group and the conclusions are given below.

Please let me have any issues by 16 September. Following that date 
(when I will consider the "Bordeaux meeting" to be closed, I will 
produce a paper version of these comments for circulation and sending 
to ISO. The editor (John Gebhardt) can then produce the final text for 
sending to ISO.

Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment 
Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-1/DAM 2
******************************************************************

Comments from Austria
_____________________

The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 
and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot. The 
features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the 
comments made. The comments are therefore rejected and no change is 
proposed.

Editorial comments acepted, editor to make the changes requested to 
table 8 (change "structure" to "application structure") and 5.4.20, 
describe the meaning of the word "increment".

Comments from France
____________________

page 3 comment - editorial comment accepted

page 14 comment - accepted, replace shall with may

page 17 comment - editorial comment accepted

page 18 comment - accepted, remove the sentence

Annex I comment - comment noted but the proposed solution was 
developed to result in the editing instruction: change "location 
precision enumerated" on page 23 to being the same as in Clause 5, 
"location data type"

Comments from Germany
_____________________

T1	The comment was accepted. The solution is to create a new 
	paragraph 4.13.6 entitled "Segments in APS" to indicate:

	-	segments may be defined in APS
	-	APS may not be defined in segments
	-	a copy segment relating to a local segment shall not 
		permitted in context independent APS

	page 96/7 covers the issues and the above description will clarify 
	the situation.

All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from UK
________________

All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from USA
_________________

T-1.1	The proposed change in the DAm text, p3 parag 5 is to be 
	deleted

T-1.2	Comment accepted, editor to make proposed change

T-1.3	Comment accepted, a registration prooposal is to be 
	submitted

T-1.4	Comment accepted, editor to make a change to p15, para 1, 
	5.2.18 to say "in the scope of the metafile"

T-1.5	Comment accepted, editor to remove "missing or" from 
	5.3.23, 3rd line from bottom

T-1.6	Comment accepted, editor to edit the penultimate sentence 
	in 5.3.24 to indicate that if an APS is present then a non-zero address 
	must be given, zero indicates there are no occurrence of APSs

T-1.7	proposed change involves no technical change and accepted 
	on that basis as editorial

T-1.8	accept, delete the rule

T-1.9	accepted, delete Model Profile description

T-1.10	moot, as section deleted

T-1.11	accepted, editor to make the proposed change

T-1.12	comment accepted, editor to also make the following 
	changes:

	page 22, change "add Annex J" to be "add Annex I"
	page 23, change "C.3.10" to "I.3.10"
	add the instruction to copy all annex C to annex I and then make 
	the changes
	change the contents to reflect this

All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Some informal comments received at the meeting from Japan were also 
accepted as resulting in editorial improvements to the document.

Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment 
Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-2/DAM 2
******************************************************************

Comments from Austria
_____________________

The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 
and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot. The 
features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the 
comments made. The comments are therefore rejected and no change is 
proposed.

Editorial comment to explain the word "increment" relating to the 
Application Structure Directory is accepted, editor to make this 
addition.

Comments from France
____________________

Comment withdrawn at the meeting

Comments from Germany
_____________________

Editorial comment accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from UK
________________

All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from USA
_________________

All technical and editorial comments accepted, editor to make the 
changes described.

Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment 
Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-3/DAM 2
*******************************************************************

Comments from Austria
_____________________

The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 
and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot. The 
features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the 
comments made. The comments are therefore rejected and no change is 
proposed.

Editorial comment to explain the word "increment" relating to the 
Application Structure Directory is accepted, editor to make this 
addition.

Comments from Germany
_____________________

All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from UK
________________

All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from USA
_________________

All technical and editorial comments accepted, editor to make the 
changes described.

Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment 
Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-4/DAM 2
*******************************************************************

Comments from Austria
_____________________

The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 
and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot 
regarding the use of application structures. The features have not 
changed since the working draft in regard to the comments made. The 
comments relating to this point are therefore rejected and no change is 
proposed.

In regard to the comment on the inter-translatability, this point is 
accepted and the editor is requested to add the following note:

"editing of clear-text encoded version 4 metafiles requires a special
editor updating any positional changes of directory entries during
editing"

Editorial comment to explain the word "increment" relating to the 
Application Structure Directory is accepted, editor to make this 
addition.

Comments from France
____________________

Comments withdrawn at the meeting

Comments from Germany
_____________________

Editorial comment accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from UK
________________
All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.

Comments from USA
_________________

All technical and editorial comments accepted, editor to make the 
changes described.