Section 10.1, page 18, paragraph 1:

"Because we desire multiple definitions of a pattern for a variety os use cases,"

should be

"Because we desire multiple definitions of a pattern for a variety of use cases,"

Fix typo

Section 10.1, page 18, paragraph 1 contains a typo:
"Because we desire multiple definitions of a pattern for a variety os use cases,"
should be
"Because we desire multiple definitions of a pattern for a variety of use cases,"

It is not clear initially how or if a formalism can refer to multiple sub-formalisms. While the model allows for it, the text does not make this explicit. Suggestion to add explanatory text to section 10.1.

Clarify that a FormalizedDefinition can be composed of other FormalizedDefinitions

Recommend to replace Section 10.1 Paragraph 3 from:
Because we desire multiple definitions of a pattern for a variety of use cases, many instances of FormalizedDefinition can be referenced by a single PatternDefinition. Each of these FormalizedDefinitions, in turn, can be composed using an extremely lightweight boolean logic mechanism defined here, to allow the composition of model fragments from a number of modeling domains. This satisfies our need for a single pattern formal definition requiring multiple views to properly describe the pattern. Many patterns, for instance, have both unique structural forms and run-time behaviors. It is unlikely that a single OMG model is going to capture all the nuances of each, but a combination of ASTM and OCL models, for instance, or PHORML and KDM, may be sufficient. For this reason, SPMS defines a minimalist composition mechanism for those that wish to have a lightweight yet compliant composition model. For more complex needs, an OCL expression may be used by an instance of DefinitionTerminal referencing an OCL model. This Formalisms package is shown in Figure 5.
With:
Because we desire multiple definitions of a pattern for a variety of use cases, many instances of FormalizedDefinition can be referenced by a single PatternDefinition. Each of these FormalizedDefinitions, in turn, can be composed of further instances of FormalizedDefinitions as sub-models, by using an extremely lightweight boolean logic mechanism defined here. This allows the composition of model fragments from a number of modeling domains into a comprehensive whole. This satisfies our need for a single pattern formal definition requiring multiple views to properly describe the pattern. Many patterns, for instance, have both unique structural forms and run-time behaviors. It is unlikely that a single OMG model is going to capture all the nuances of each, but a combination of ASTM and OCL models, for instance, or PHORML and KDM, may be sufficient. For this reason, SPMS defines a minimalist composition mechanism for those that wish to have a lightweight yet compliant composition model. For more complex needs, an OCL expression may be used by an instance of DefinitionTerminal referencing an OCL model. This Formalisms package is shown in Figure 5.

When reading the Relationships section (11.1) it appears at first glance that a pattern can only be a member of one category at a time. It only becomes obvious after looking at Figure 1 in the Definitions section (8.1) that the multiplicity of memberships in categories is shown there. The model is correct, but explanatory text should be added to section 11.1 to reiterate that a single PatternDefinition can have any number of Interpattern Relationships.

Clarify that a PatternDefinition can have many InterpatternRelationships

Proposed to alter Section 11.1, pg 17, paragraph 1 from:
The Relationships package defines classes to enable rich searching and semantic association in a repository or catalog of PatternDefinitions. The package overview is shown in Figure 6. InterpatternRelationship provides semantic linkages between PatternDefinitions. KnownUse provides specializations of PatternInstances suitable as examples of a PatternDefinition in concrete situations.
To:
The Relationships package defines classes to enable rich searching and semantic association in a repository or catalog of PatternDefinitions. The package overview is shown in Figure 6. InterpatternRelationship provides semantic linkages between PatternDefinitions. A PatternDefinition can have multiple InterpatternRelationship connections to allow for a rich connected network. KnownUse provides specializations of PatternInstances suitable as examples of a PatternDefinition in concrete situations.

Consumers of SPMS have requested the ability to include diagrams, pointers to existing documents, etc., in the section bodies.

Allow PatternSection to contain richer content than a simple string.

Sec 8.1, final paragraph, page 9:

Change from:
Each PatternDefinition contains a list of these Roles, and a list of PatternSections. These PatternSections are prose entries that describe for a human reader the definition of the pattern as defined according to appropriate patterns communities that adopt SPMS.

Change to:
Each PatternDefinition contains a list of these Roles, and a list of PatternSections. These PatternSections entries contain prose, diagrams, or other necessary structured document contents to describe for a human reader the definition of the pattern as defined according to appropriate patterns communities that adopt SPMS.

Sec 8.1 Figure 3, page 10:
Replace with new Figure3.pdf (attached)

Sec 8.5, paragraph 1, first sentence, page 11:
Change from:
A PatternSection is a free-form prose textual description of a portion of a PatternDefinition.

Change to:
A PatternSection is a description of a portion of a PatternDefinition. The description may be free-form prose, diagrams, models, or a structured combination thereof. The body attribute of the PatternSection is a generalized MOF::Element to allow for a multitude of formats and data, although the most common is expected to be simple text.

Section 8.5, Attributes, page 12:
Change from:
body : String The contents of the PatternSection.

Change to:
body : MOF::Element The contents of the PatternSection.

Modification to SPMS1.1.xmi: Convert body element type from PrimitiveTypes.xmi#String to UML.xmi#Element

On behalf of Gilles Malfreyt, Thales Group:

p.25: section 12.5 Multiplicities: it seems that what is proposed leads to duplicate pattern instances each time a role is multiple.
Maybe it would be interesting to also have the case where roles are multiple without duplicating pattern instances.

Clarify that MultiBranched Annotations can be used for multiple roles as well as multiple pattern instances

Submitter of issue requested change to add multiplicity annotation for roles, but the capability was already extant in the specification and figures. Explanatory text needed to be added to make this explicitly clear on reading.

Section 12.6.2, pg 30, paragraph 1 needs to be expanded. It currently reads as:

The MultiBranch annotation can also be used within an Expanded PINbox, as shown in Figure 23. Now, we are showing both instances of the Decorator pattern, unlike in Figure 17 where we showed only one.