Closed 3DXScape closed 2 years ago
I have adjusted the naming and level of the sections to address (maybe only partially) the last item. I am not checking it off until I have some additional feedback.
Note: I am labelling this and two other late-arriving review comments as part of the public review process, though it close in mid-December. These are all necessary for a quality standard document and do not change the testable normative content.
Probably will move non-redundant glossary content to terms and definitions. Still need to do some renaming/level adjustment on requirements
Decided not to move non-redundant glossary content to terms and definitions. Still need to do minor renaming/level adjustment on requirements
Level adjustment and naming conventions for requirements and tests finished and synchronized.
This is the central part of Carl's email
Anyway, me being me, I took a deep dive into the draft document. Attached contains my suggested edits and a number of comments. The majority of comments have to do with clarity, cleaning up ambiguities, and inconsistencies.
A biggie is that there are no requirements classes. A standardization target is not a requirements class but is instead the target for a requirements class. In the case of GeoPose there happens to be a one to one correspondence between a requirements class and a standardization target. Adding requirements classes is straight forward. Then the next step is to have conformance classes that correspond to the requirements classes.
I have converted this into 4 items:
On the last item, I think this is already there but the structure or naming or the levels of the different sections obscures it.