ISO/IEC                                                   DEFECT REPORT

The submitter of a defect report shall complete items 2 to 4 and 7 to 10 
and, optionally, item 11 and shall send the form to the convener or 
secretariat of the WG with which the relevant editor's group is 
associated.  The WG convener or secretariat shall then complete items 1, 
5, and 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  Defect report number:

 2  Submitter: J.Dawes (Project Editor)

 3  Addressed to: JTC1/SC22/WG22

 4  WG secretariat: Switzerland
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5  Date circulated by WG secretariat:           

 6  Deadline on response from editor:            

 7  Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard 
    or DIS final text): ISO/IEC 13719-1 : 1995

 8  Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required): error

 9  References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table 
    numbers): clause 9.2.9

10  Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived 
    problem):

Udo Kelter writes: The effect of LINK_REPLACE is defined as a sequence (!?) of 
two other operations, namely

1. LINK_CREATE (new_origin, new_link, dest, new_reverse_key);

2. LINK_DELETE (origin, link)

If I want to replace a link, but not its reverse link, new_reverse_link must 
be the currently existing key of the reverse link.  Then LINK_CREATE will fail 
with error REVERSE_LINK_EXISTS.

The error REVERSE_LINK_EXISTS appears also in LINK_REPLACE, but I think it is 
only intended for the case that there is yet another link from the destination 
object which has the same link name as the reverse link to be created.

The ambiguity in the specs lies in the problem that the sequence of operations 
may not really be meant to be a sequence with all error checking (see also 
9.2.9(3)).

Question: is it really intended that, if I replace a link, I must also rename 
its reverse link?

I think the answer is no.  If so, the specs should be made clearer, e.g. by 
replacing the error 9.2.9(26) REVERSE_LINK_EXISTS by 

LINK_EXISTS (dest, new_reverse_key)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):

See 10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12  Editor's response (any material proposed for processing as a 
    technical corrigendum to, an amendment to, or a commentary on the 
    International Standard or DIS final text is attached separately to 
    this completed report):
------------------------------------------------------------------------