Issue 4668: Section 8.1, page 31                                                                                                                                                                                    (spem-ftf)
Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mariano.belaunde@orange-ftgroup.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: I don't see any justification for prohibiting the WorkProducts to have
features.
Attributes in WorkProducts may be useful to add extra information
(such as the version number, creation date, etc). Each SPEM compliant
family may define its own set of relevant attributes.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
November 7, 2001: received issue
October 23, 2002: closed issue
Discussion: 
Resolution:
We accepted this and voted on 14/1/2002, on the basis that this was a very simple change.  However, issue 5086 points out that we were in error to do so because it is not a simple change at all.  Therefore on 16/4/2002 we proposed to revisit the issue and to reject it.

End of Annotations:=====
From: BELAUNDE Mariano FTRD/DTL/LAN
       <mariano.belaunde@rd.francetelecom.com>
To: spem-ftf@omg.org
Subject: Issues to the SPEM document
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:43:16 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: Nnl!!iMLe9;"'!!~>;!!

Hi all,

You will find below a list of issues regarding the current version of
the SPEM specification.

Regards,
Mariano Belaunde
France Telecom R&D
------------------------------------------------------

- Section 8.1, page 31
I don't see any justification for prohibiting the WorkProducts to have
features.
Attributes in WorkProducts may be useful to add extra information
(such as the version number, creation date, etc). Each SPEM compliant
family may define its own set of relevant attributes.