Adjudication Results for Public Review Comments
SDTS Raster Profile and Extensions
October 8, 1998
Comments are the original text received, and the results are shown as the action taken after adjudication by the Raster Convergence Working Group (authors).
Comment 1:
Page 1, Section 1.1, paragraph 1, line 4
Editorial comment
Existing Text: … the profile annex option which permits the BIFF to be used…
Recommended Text: … the profile annex option that permits BIFF to be used …
Justification : 1. Clause “which permits” is restrictive; therefore, “that” should be used
2. BIFF is referred to elsewhere in document as BIFF, not “the BIFF”
Result: Recommended changes made.
Comment 2:
Page 1, Section 1.1.1, item b
Editorial
Existing Text: to provide for machine and media independence
Recommended Text: to provide for machine and medium independence
Justification: Singular form is used when noun is converted to adjectives; note for example, that it is “machine” and not “machines”
Result: Recommended changes made.
Comment 3:
Page 2. Section 1.1.2, paragraph 1, line 1
Substantive
Existing Text: specifications for a profile for use with georeferenced two-dimensional raster data
Recommended text: specifications for an SDTS profile for use with georeferenced two-dimensional raster data
Justification: Scope should explicitly state that this profile is in the SDTS context.
Result: At the beginning of the sentence is the acronym "SRPE", which already states the context as that of SDTS. No change made.
Comment 4:
Page 2, Section 1.1.2, paragraph 2, line 2
Editorial
Existing Text: … can be conceptualized as two-dimensional array of data values.
Recommended Text: … can be conceptualized as a two-dimensional array of data values.
Justification: Apparent typographical error.
Result: Recommended changes made.
Comment 5:
Page 2, Section 1.1.3, line 4
Substantive
Existing text: … most appropriate for blind transfers, data archives, and data distribution in a non-proprietary format.
Recommended text: … most appropriate for blind transfers and data distribution in a non-proprietary format.
Justification: SDTS is a transfer format, not an archive format.. The FGDC Standards reference model defines the utility of transfer standards as to “facilitate moving data among systems”, and does not mention archiving.
Result: SDTS is recognized as an archive standard for GIS data by the National Archives. An archive can be thought of as a transfer across time. No change made.
Comment 6:
Page 2, Section 1.1.4., line 1
Substantive
Existing text: The following references contain provisions which … constitute provisions of SRPE. At the time of publication, the editions indicated were valid. All standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on SRPE should investigate any recent editions of the
references below.
Comment: From the text above, what happens when a referenced standard is changed is not clear. Which version is the one whose provisions are part of the Raster Profile – the one referenced in the document or the new one?
Result: Text changed to "The following references contain provisions which ... constitute provisions of SRPE. At the time of publication, the editions reflect the document versions used for implementing the SRPE. Revisions to referenced standards that post-date this document, and do not cause ambiguity or change to this profile may
be used without violating compliance. For clarification, contact the profile maintenance authority."
Comment 7:
Page 3, Section 1.1.5, paragraph 1, line 3
Substantive
Existing Text: … a means of using the archival capabilities, the non-proprietary distribution mechanism, and the geometric information focus of the SDTS …
Recommended Text: a means of using the non-proprietary distribution mechanism and the geometric information focus of the SDTS …
Justification: See comments under page 2, section 1.1.3, line 4. Criteria for suitability for archive may differ from those for suitability for transfer and may not be relevant here.
Result: SDTS is recognized as an archive standard for GIS data by the National Archives. An archive can be thought of as a transfer across time. No change made.
Comment 8:
Page 3, Section 1.1.5, paragraph 1, line 4
Editorial
Existing Text: … information focus of the SDTS
Recommended Text: … information focus of SDTS
Justification: SDTS is referred to elsewhere in document as SDTS, not “the SDTS”
Result: Recommended change made.
Comment 9:
Page 7. Section 2.7, paragraph 3, line 1
Editorial
Existing Text: For the G2W object code a conformant decoder must be able to display it as if it is a G2 code with appropriate warnings to the data consumer.
Recommended text: A conformant decoder must be able to display G2W object code as if it were a G2 code, with appropriate warnings to the consumer.
Justifications:
1. Existing start of sentence is convoluted.
2. Subjunctive mood (code being displayed as G2 code, but it isn’t.
3. Existing punctuation implies it is being displayed as a G2 code with incorporated warnings, but I think that what is intended is a G2 display with separate warnings/
Result: Recommended change made.
Comment 10:
Page 8, Section 3.1, paragraph 3, line 3
Editorial
Existing Text: … has undergone multiple lossy compression’s,….
Recommended Text: … has undergone multiple lossy compressions,….
Justification: “compressions” is in the plural not the possessive
Result: Recommended change made.
Comment 11:
Page 10, Section 4.1, paragraph 2, line 4
Editorial
Existing Text: Modules types that can occur more than once during a transfer, and whether 1, 2, or 3 characters can be varied, are designated in the table in Section 5.0.
Recommended Text: Which of the module types can occur more than once during a transfer and the number of characters in the name that can be varied to signify multiple occurrence are identified in Table 5.1.
Justifications:
1. Singular form is normally used in adjective form of noun.
2. Table number should be given when available rather than reference by section.
3 Proposed wording shows more clearly the relation between the possibility of multiple occurrences and the variations of module name.
4 Number of characters that can be varied has already been stated and need not be repeated.
Result: Recommended change made.