Issue 14200: OCL 2.0 Inadequate Headings and PDF index (ocl2-rtf)
Source: Model Driven Solutions (Dr. Edward Willink, ed(at)willink.me.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The OCL 2.0 specification would be much easier to read if:


1) The PDF had a full set of titles visible in the bookmarks:


8.3.*, Annex A.2 , Annex B and Index are missing completely.


A.1 and A.3 apppear as subsections of 13.3.


2) There are a number of large sections such as 8.3.*, 9.3 and 10.4 with unnumbered headings for each AS or CS class.
[11.5 is much better in this respect.]


These are not in alphabetical order, not page aligned and not particularly distinct.


It would be helpful to


a) give them numbers so that they appear in the Bookmarks and are more distinct.
b) put them in alphabetical order.
[c) consider page aligning them.]


[It would be good if the index was much more comprehensive too.


e.g "at", "null", "any", "iterator", "UnlimitedNatural" ...]


Resolution: PDF bookmarks were fixed in OCL 2.3.
Alphabeticizing must wait until autogenerated in OCL 2.5.
Provision of a manually maintained index in OMG specifications is strongly discouraged.
Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 22, 2009: received issue
December 23, 2013: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEADoKkUrUnw4R/2dsb2JhbADRQoQaBQ
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:23:43 +0100
From: Ed Willink <ed@willink.me.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
To: issues@omg.org
Subject: OCL 2.0 Inadequate Headings and PDF index
X-Plusnet-Relay: 6bab31946810a83b79390ff04eeeefbb


Hi


The OCL 2.0 specification would be much easier to read if:


1) The PDF had a full set of titles visible in the bookmarks:


8.3.*, Annex A.2 , Annex B and Index are missing completely.


A.1 and A.3 apppear as subsections of 13.3.


2) There are a number of large sections such as 8.3.*, 9.3 and 10.4 with unnumbered headings for each AS or CS class.
[11.5 is much better in this respect.]


These are not in alphabetical order, not page aligned and not particularly distinct.


It would be helpful to


a) give them numbers so that they appear in the Bookmarks and are more distinct.
b) put them in alphabetical order.
[c) consider page aligning them.]


[It would be good if the index was much more comprehensive too.


e.g "at", "null", "any", "iterator", "UnlimitedNatural" ...]


   Regards


      Ed Willink