There are two references sections (sections 3 and 9). All the references should be moved to section 3, and section 9 eliminated.

References moved to Clause 3

Move references to clause 3 and eliminate clause 9

Conformance section (Section 2) needs hardening up, mainly by using ISO Part 2 language (e.g. "Implementations of this specification should be able to demonstrate all four of the following attributes in order to claim conformance" -> "Implementations of this specification shall demonstrate all four of the following attributes in order to claim conformance").

Hardened comformance

add hardening

The specification should be more prescriptive. A document like this must tell implementers exactly what they must do to create a conforming implementation. Mandatory parts of the specification shall therefore use the word "shall". Words like "should", "can" or "will" are too vague, and do not comply with the ISO directives that OMG follows; as the OMG RFP template says (section 4.9.1):

'The key words "shall", "shall not", "should", "should not", "may"
and "need not" shall be used as described in Part 2 of the ISO/IEC
Directives [ISO2]. These ISO terms are compatible with the same terms in
IETF RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. However, the RFC 2119 terms "must", "must
not", "optional", "required", "recommended" and "not recommended"
shall not be used (even though they are permitted under RFC2119).'

Those ISO directives can be found here:

[ISO2] ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 – Rules for the structure and drafting of
International Standards
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=4230456

Please check every instance of the words "will" (41 instances), "must" (6 instances), "could" (2 instances) to see if they should be replaced by "shall", and check every "should" (7 instances) and "may" (21 instances) to see if they're being used as per ISO Directives Part 2.

Made spec more prescriptive

make wording more prescriptive throughout spec

The relationship between sections 6 & 7 isn't clear. Are they two alternative descriptions of the same thing? Or two specifications of two different things? Please clarify.

The whole of section 6 is a natural language specification of a complex calculation to be undertaken to compute an Automated Enhancement Points value for a program. If this isn't specified formally elsewhere (e.g. using SMM & OCL or ALF, then it should be).

On the other hand, if (as I suspect) section 7 is the formal specification in SMM of the algorithm informally described in Section 6, then more description is needed of how the two relate to each other.

Section 7 also needs to be made more human-readable. This human reader couldn't extract any meaning at all from PDF pages 35 to 147 (although I'm sure there's plenty of meaning there!). If this is just a formatted dump of the contents of admtf/15-10-02 (the XMI file), then including it doesn't add much value to the specification. It's only worth including if it can be related to the contents of Section 6 and/or it includes extra explanatory text to help implementers understand the XMI file.

relationship between clauses 6 & 7 clarified

Discarding §7 and beefing up §6•beefing up §6 is two-fold: more details in plain text and inclusion of references to XMI content, from discarded §7, in framed boxes
Alignment of §6 on normative content as requested by AEP-14 , including references from XMI content in text boxes

Why is Section 6 "Informative"? This seems to be a key part of the specification. Why is it not therefore Normative?

Made Section 6 normative

Discarding §7 and beefing up §6. Beefing up §6 is two-fold:
1) more details in plain text and 2) inclusion of references to XMI content, from discarded §7, in framed boxes

Alignment of §6 on normative content as requested by AEP-14 , including references from XMI content in text boxes

Each definition in section 4 should be a complete sentence, starting with a capital letter.

Definitions made into sentences

All definitions were turned into sentences.

On PDF page 15 (page 14): "The Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ) was formed as a special interest group of OMG". Not so. "Special Interest Group" has a specific meaning under OMG's P&P (see http://doc.omg.org/pp), and CISQ isn't one. Instead, it's a separate organisation with its own governance (http://it-cisq.org/).

CISQ status clarified

"The Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ) is a program of the OMG", because it can be found in the "Programs" menu of the OMG web site

All the figures except Figure 6.1 are bitmaps that look fuzzy at high magnification. Please replace them with vector graphics (preferably in SVG). In addition, Table 1 (bottom of PDF page 14) is a Fuzzy Bitmap Table (a new innovation!). Please replace it with a real table.

Fuzzy pictures replaced

Replace fuzzy bitmaps and table

The specification needs a "Table of Figures" and "Table of Tables" alongside the "Table of Contents".

Added Tables of Figures and Tables

Add tables

On PDF pages 24 & 30 (pages 23 & 29), what does "resp." mean? (4 instances)

Replaced "resp" by "respectively"

Replaced "resp" by "respectively" in all instances where it occurred

Table at the bottom of PDF page 14 (page 13) has no caption. Is it, in fact, Table 1?

Figure 1 caption added

caption added

In Section 1 (Scope), PDF page 11 "OMG initiatives such as the Internet of Things Consortium". There is an independent organisation called the "Industrial Internet Consortium" for which OMG Inc provides administrative services - but this is not an "OMG initiative".

reword IoT Consortium

reword description of IoT Consortium

On PDF page 12 (page 11): "The problem describe in clause 1.2.1 is summarized visually in Figure 1.3, where LOC = Lines Of Code." describe -> described.

Corrected spelling

correct spelling

On PDF page 12 (page 11): "The software unaddressed by traditional functional size measures are designated as non

Added word

add word

On PDF page 12 (page 11): "In addition, modifying code may not change the number of manually counted or Automated Function Points if it changes the attributes of, but not the number of functional elements counted." Needs another comma to be readable: "In addition, modifying code may not change the number of manually counted or Automated Function Points if it changes the attributes of, but not the number of, functional elements counted."

Add comma for clarity

add comma

On page 10 (PDF page 11), is there a word missing in this sentence? "When the number of Automated Function Points does not differ between two different levels of change complexity, the effort required to the more complex change can be severely underrepresented."

Add word

add "implement"

It's hard to see how Appendix B belongs in a specification. Some of the material about the background to the specification should be moved to section 1.4, the rest should probably be eliminated.

Eliminate Appexdix B

Eliminate Appendix B