Issue : Excessive indentation due to the blocks used to delimit the package contents.
According to the current draft, the top-level definitions of a package instance need to be put inside
a block delimited by open and close brackets. This is not very user-friendly in the sense that it
introduces excessive indentation that could be avoided.
Suggestion for resolution: Use a one-line delimiter convention (such as 'package "xxxxxx";') meaning
that all the above definitions until the next delimiter are part of the package content. Note that the same
kind of notation is found in the Java language to declare packages.
This delimiter convention may be optional or mandatory (to be discussed).

see below

Issue Section 6.5: Need to improve readability when referencing instances.
Inside the class contents, due to the multiple short-hands, it's not always clear whether an instance is
being defined (fully represented) or is being referenced .
To avoid any possible confusion and improve readability, a "ref" prefix keyword could be added.
Suggestion for resolution: Add the "ref" keyword in ClassInstanceRef
[23] ClassInstanceRef := ('ref' (<ClasName>? 14:ClassRefString) ) | ExternalObjRef
Need discussion : should the "ref" keyword be optional or mandatory?

No Data Available

Issue : Section 6.3 : Ambiguous meaning when omitting opening and closing brackets
In 6.3 in the first paragraph it's said that opening and closing brackets should be optionnaly omitted
if the instance has no contents. This is error prone and ambiguous since one cannot distinguish between
a definition without contents from a contained instance whose definition (full representation) is forwarded.
Suggestion for resolution: remove the sentence (open and close brackets are not allowed to be omitted).

see below

Issue : Section 6.5 : Missing where to put the full representation of a non inlined contained instance.
According to the specification, a contained instance maybe represented by a full representation
of the instance or by a reference to the instance. However, in the latter case, the specification does
noy say nothing about where to place the full representation of the contained instances that are not
inlined.
Suggestion for resolution:
In the second paragraph, after "or by a reference to the instance.", add the following sentence:
"In the latter case the full representation of the contained instance must appear as a top level
definition in the content of the current package.
In addition, in order to distinguish between these "forwarded" definitions and the other
"top-level" definitions we should consider introducing a prefix keyword (such as "forward",
to be added in the ClassHeader).

see below

Below the proposed text:
France Telecom has developped since 1997 a MOF based model repository tool [Belaunde99] and has
implemented since 1999 facilities to import and export textual human usable specifications that use a
Java-like syntax (the notation was originnally named JMI) and a hierarchical identification system. The
implementation uses a generic parser that is connected at run time to the API's generated from the MOF
compliant metamodel definitions (No intermediate BNF parser generation is then used). France Telecom has
provided feedback to the submitters based on its original implementation.

see below

Issue : Preface : Update the list of persons in the acknowledgments paragraph
In the current submission only two persons are mentioned (Kerry Raymond and Keith Duddy). Other
persons such as Jim Steel and Mariano Belaunde should appear.

see above

Issue : The identification mechanism need to be more flexible to make easier the automatic production
of HUTN renderings from modeling tools.
The proposed identification mechanism is too rigid and very difficult to manage appropriately when
HUTN renderings are produced automatically from use case tools.

see below

The document does not address how classifier level attributes are
represented by HUTN

see below

: On page 6-13, production rule [31] states:
[31] AssocInstance := 32:AssocInstance | 35:InfixAssocLink
This should be 32:AssocBlock, not 32:AssocInstance
Proposed Resolution: On page 6-13, in section 6.7, replace
"[31] AssocInstance := 32:AssocInstance | 35:InfixAssocLink"
with
"[31] AssocInstance := 32:AssocBlock | 35:InfixAssocLink"

see below

on page 3-1, in section 3.2, "Input Stream Conformance":

• "For a given combination of MOF model and HUTN Configuration" should
  be replaced with "For all given combinations of MOF models and HUTN
  Configurations".

see below