The text is clear, but perhaps it's worth adding a sentence about @scope. Or are we intentionally leaving that out until we figure out what to do with it?
Indeed, Raffaele, we (meaning Lou, Martin, Peter, and James) have decided to thaw the freeze and remove the suggested values list for @scope, replacing it with only "May be used to name the referent of the data contained in xenoData". (Which seems to me to be outright incorrect -- it is not, and should not be, a *name*.) Fabio, Hugh, and I dissented, believing it would better not to have @scope than to have it w/o a suggested values list. @scope is also now defined as the wrong datatype, about which I'll be answering Hugh in a minute in the hopes that we can correct at least one of our egregious errors before we release Guidelines that explicitly and deliberately fail to provide guidance that we can quite easily predict would be useful.