6.4.15.3 has errors - Githubissues

ISO-TC211 / StandardsTracker

This GitHub repository lets you - our users - log and track issues that you find with our standards and other document. Tag the issue with the standard or standards effected; we will assign it to the relevant group(s) within TC 211.

12 stars 0 forks source link

6.4.15.3 has errors #265

Open isotc211 opened 3 years ago

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

Justification: At first, the Orientable has operation "opposite", instead of "reverse"

In addition, the data type of association role "primitive" is "Orientable", not "Primitive"

And the title and formal definition should follow similar form with other sections. Proposal: the title should be changed from : "Association Roles: proxy and primitive operation reverse (): Orientable" to : "Association Roles: proxy and primitive. operation opposite()"

the formal definition should be changed from : "Orientable::proxy: Orientable Orientable::primitive: Primitive" to : "proxy: Orientable primitive: Orientable"

The last sentence should be changed from : "The operation "reverse()" will always return the opposite object in the pair." to : "The operation "opposite()" will always return the opposite object in the pair."

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required. (In reply to John Herring from comment #1)

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required.

Yes, they are semantically the same. However it is operation name, so they must not be different, I think.

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required. (In reply to John Herring from comment #1)

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required.

Yes, they are semantically the same. However it is operation name, so they must not be different, I think.

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required. (In reply to John Herring from comment #1)

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required.

Yes, they are semantically the same. However it is operation name, so they must not be different, I think.

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required. (In reply to John Herring from comment #1)

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required.

Yes, they are semantically the same. However it is operation name, so they must not be different, I think.

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required. (In reply to John Herring from comment #1)

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required.

Yes, they are semantically the same. However it is operation name, so they must not be different, I think.

isotc211 commented 3 years ago

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required. (In reply to John Herring from comment #1)

"Opposite" and "reverse" are identical in semantics. No change is required.

Yes, they are semantically the same. However it is operation name, so they must not be different, I think.