Looking over the schema template the only real change that it appears was made was the addition of “legal” and “other” subelement options beneath the feasibility heading. I think that adding these two categories is hugely helpful, especially with the addition of other. This allows for the author to add more information that may be project specific and not fall under any of the predefined subelements. Although this is not something that our team had initially discussed it adds additional room for proposal flexibility which was very important to us when writing the schema.
Other issues discussed in the team design post by the second group for the public initiative proposal included the addition of a global reference element and changes to the definitions and requirements for some of the attributes. Although the team did not suggest any possible definition alternatives it was definitely something that our original team had discussed and struggled with finalizing. Because each team member was looking at the genre from a slightly different angle based on our majors and experiences we tried to keep definitions and attribute requirements as general as possible while still providing sound guidance in structure. It was important to us that the document be able to reflect the project that it was for in a very specific and fitting manner contextually. The addition of a global reference element was something that we had talked about as well, however we were told that it would be a bit difficult to incorporate and because this genre was focused at the public we figured it was slightly less academic in nature and that in text reference call outs would not be necessary as long as those references were listed in a works cited at the end of the document. Overall I would say that I understand where all of these comments and changes are coming from and I agree that they would make a good addition and fit with the general goal that team 3 originally had for the schema.
