[wg11] SEDS for EXPRESS (10303-11:2004)

[Lothar Klein]

Ed,

In general I agree with the clarifications you propose but would
suggest to use in the new wording more definitions from clause 3.3,
mainly 
- 3.3.9
  (single) entity (data type) value
- 3.3.20
  subtype/supertype graph
  a declared collection of entity data types. The entity data types
  declared within a subtype/supertype graph are related via the
  subtype statement. A subtype/supertype graph defines one or 
  more complex entity data types.

So instead of writing
"a) In the resulting partial complex entity value, the attribute group
    corresponding to a given entity declaration shall occur at most
    once."
I propose to write
"a) The resulting partial complex entity value shall consists of
    single entity values of different entity data types."

Instead of
"b) In the resulting partial complex entity value, all entity
    declarations represented shall be part of at least one valid type
    graph."
write
"b) In the resulting partial complex entity value, all entity
    data types represented shall be part of at least one valid
    subtype/supertype graph."

Instead of
"a) The partial complex entity value shall consist of a set of
    attribute groups that corresponds to the structure of a valid
    complex entity instance, as specified in Annex B"
write
"a) The partial complex entity value shall consist of a set of
    single entity values whose data types corresponds to the structure
    of a valid complex entity instance, as specified in Annex B"

There may be a few more cases like this

Lothar

-- 
// Lothar Klein, LKSoftWare GmbH
// Steinweg 1, 36093 Kuenzell, Germany
// +49 661 933933-0, Fax: -2
// mailto:lothar.klein at lksoft.com   http://www.lksoft.com

Monday, May 16, 2005, 11:59:44 PM, you wrote:
> All,

> The attached four SEDS reports fell out of the (unofficial) project to
> develop a formal metamodel for the EXPRESS language.

> All of these changes are expected to be Editorial, in that they correct
> or clarify inaccurate or ambiguous wording.  The proposed changes to
> clause 12.9 and clause 12.10, however, may not be the interpretation of
> the text that WG11 actually intended, and if that is the case, then 
> these may become technical issues.

> -Ed

> P.S. I put these on the table now, because we just discovered them, and
> because I understand that there is a forthcoming TCorr to fix EXPRESS-G
> problems with EXPRESS edition 2.