For FCD definition in §10.2.2.4.4, the phrase "A functionally constrained data shall be defined as the DataRef accompanied by a value of a functional constraint (FC)" is not clear nor formal.
Only the DataRef is formally detailed as an ObjectReference in §10.2.2.2.
For FCDA definition in §10.2.2.4.5, the phrase "A functionally constrained data attribute shall be defined as a DataAttributeReference accompanied by a value of a functional constraint (FC)" is not clear nor formal.
Only the DataAttributeReference is formally detailed as an ObjectReference in §10.2.2.4.1.2.
It does not seem enough to have in these paragraphs a reference to figure 11 (with a [MX] FCD and a [MX] FCDA example).
Proposal
In §10.2.2.4.4, as an additive explanation about FCD, I suggest to write something like :
"An FCD is an ObjectReference resulting in the concatenation of a DataRef and a FC between brakets".
In §10.2.2.4.5, as an additive explanation about FCDA, I suggest to write something like :
"An FCDA is an ObjectReference resulting in the concatenation of a DataAttributeReference and a FC between brakets".
Discussion
Created
Status
Changed staus to green.
17 Feb 08
In Force (green)
Accepted in principle.
The terms are defined twice (in the first sentence and in the third sentence). The first definition [The reference of an ordered collection of DataAttributes of a DATA (or attributes of a control block) having the same functional constraint (FC) value shall be called functional constrained data (FCD).] is sufficient.
The syntax of the FCD and FCDA is defined in the SCSMs.
Removed the third sentence in both definitions.
14 Apr 07
Ballot Period
Jean-Philippe,
Congratulation for tissue #500 !!
13 Apr 07
Discussion (red)
This is essentially the same issue (but perhaps better stated) that I raised in Tissue 287.