I think the #1 requirement is that the CRM be a machine-readable spec so that one can derive other forms of output than a human-readable document, and do schema-type checks on the document. My cursory browse of the source suggests that only simple tagging is used (ie headings) in the spec - but I may well simply be not-understanding how the editors work!
For example, when I see something like this in the Word source[1]: <w:t xml:space="preserve"> assumptions about the scale of the associated phenomena. In particular all events are seen as synthetic processes consisting of coherent phenomena. Therefore E4 Period is a superclass of E5 Event. For example, a modern clinical E67 Birth can be seen as both an atomic E5 Event and as an E4 Period that consists of multiple activities performed by multiple instances of E39 Actor. </w:t> my immediate worry is that there doesn’t _appear_ to be any validation of the names of entities. When I see “E67 Birth” here, I wonder what checks are in place to stop the editor typing “E67 Brith” :-} [1] the distributed version is .doc, so I converted it to .docx in order to read it. Sebastian Rahtz Chief Data Architect University of Oxford IT Services +44 1865 283431
