IHO documents in the S-100 series need to follow the structure stated in S-97

[ronaldtse]

From iho-ohi/S-102-Product-Specification#66

The S-100 series of documents are governed by the guidelines in S-97:

• S-97: IHO Guidelines for Creating S-100 Product Specifications (Edition 1.1.0, June 2020)

Perhaps this is a special document type, e.g. s-100-product-specification?

In addition, there are different layouts depending on the publisher:

• IHO S-101 to S-199
• IALA S-201 to S-299
• IEHG S-401 to S-402
• WMO S-411 to S-414
• IEC S-421 to S-430

IHO S-102

IALA S-201

IEHG S-401

[opoudjis]

Real solution to the structure requirement is to create mn-templates-iho

[opoudjis]

So only 2 templates needed, you can extract them from:

• S-102 which is an S-100 document following S-98 rules
• C-17 which is a typical IHO document

1. All the S-{1,2,3,4}xx documents follow S-98
2. All other IHO documents follow the "typical" one

[opoudjis]

@hasel001 I have just created https://github.com/metanorma/mn-templates-iho to capture the document structure of IHO documents. Document templates are a mechanism used by Metanorma to provide shells of documents to be filled in; I am using that as the most expedient way to provide scaffolding for S-100 documents. To that end, I have also included some of the S-97 text as comments, to guide authors, with references back to S-97.

The only exemplar I have had for S-100 documents is S-102; I am using that as the basis for the template of S-100 documents, but its clauses do not align perfectly with S-97: some clauses are conflated, some appear in different order, some clauses are not provided. I need IHO to clarify queries in the comments, and supply templates for missing clauses.

[opoudjis]

As I've already said, I don't think it makes sense to try to impose the rigidity of ISO documents on the dozen-odd clause types of S-97, especially given that clauses can be rearranged, conflated, and added to, and the variation in clause titles between S-97 and S-102. I don't think anything further needs to be done here from the validation or post-processing side, nor do I think adding a type vocabulary to clauses will do more than the template does.

[hasel001]

S-102PT Chair has action to migrate the pertinent information from Issue 66 in the S-102 PS Repo to this one. The text and image below were submitted by @rmalyankar on 27 August 2024.

@ronaldtse, you had an earlier submission in the aforementioned issue, but I surmise that you don't need it copied over. If I am incorrect, please let me know, and I will be happy to migrate that content, too.

---

1. "Use of language" is not a sub-topic of "Terms, definitions and abbreviations" and should be a separate sub-clause at the same level as "Terms, definitions, and abbreviations" (e.g., clause 1.4 Use of Language).
2. Note the style used for terms and definitions (these conventions are used in S-100 Edition 5.2.0 as well as S-97 1.1.0 itself):
   • Individual terms do not get their own clause/heading numbers.
   • Terms begin with lower case letters.
   • Definitions also begin with lower case letters.
   • The source is cited in box brackets after the definition, sometimes on the same line, sometimes on the next line. (I recommend the same line, so as not to waste space on the page with an additional minimally filled line)

[opoudjis]

Addressed both requirements above:

Will be released Monday.

Please advise of any further review, I have not been apprised by @ronaldtse

[opoudjis]

Left open, Daniel to query Lawrence on whether this issue has been fully resolved.