Tom, the document is in great shape, but on a careful read I noticed a few minor wording issues...

- Section 4.2, second para, second sentence - "The definitions of the status types in a profile MAY be repeated..."  It 
takes a while to figure out the intent.  Suggest "These definitions MAY be repeated as appropriate in the Profile 
document; otherwise a reference to this document MUST be provided."

- In the Institutional Standard bullet, second para, there is a spurious ; after OASIS Standards.

- On page 5, in the intro para to adoption levels, same comment about the definitions.  

- In the same para, "The characterization of each of the following adoption levels are..." - the "are" should be "is" OR
 "characterization" should be plural.  [Depends whether you think that each bullet below is one characterization or may 
be several.]

- In the Unimplemented bullet on the same page, "but are not available" (last line) should be "but they are not 
available."

- At the top of Page 6, there's a logic error in the "due to either" line.  I would fix it by changing it to "due either
 to" and removing the second "due" at the end of the line, but there are other options!

- Same para, "specific specification" might be better as "particular specification."

- I'm not sure if this was considered: is it possible to provide examples for the adoption levels?  I imagine this would
 be tough for some, and may not be worthwhile, but it would balance the status section.

- In 4.2.1 the Note at the end of the first para now refers to a non-existent section. 

- In the table, the arrow-heads were copied from the spreadsheet, but I later found that they don't show up if you don't
 have the right fonts. As the document is published in PDF it might be OK to leave it like this, but we're encouraging 
people to copy and paste, so it might turn out to be a problem, plus it may depend on who generates the PDF. So I 
recommend changing these to a simple "<".

- In 5.1 AND 5.2, third para, I recommend changing "In other words" to "For example", *IF* you agree that these are not 
the only way that specs could be inconsistent.

- And Hiro already mentioned that you presumably should change the author info, but I'll mention it too, to make sure 
you don't forget the IBM on the front page header. :0)

That's it!

- Jem