Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Comments required

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

Thanks Steve for all your work.  Some comments below:


At 18:26 2003/03/04 +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>Generally the language used throughout is rather formal and heavy to
>read. Lightening it up a bit would probably be a good idea.

One general rule in to try to change the ---tion  to their active 
counterparts.

I think the first two paragraphs can be combined and we should extract out 
only the essentials.

For example

Instead of the first sentences of the first and second paragraphs we can 
say this to start:

The primary goal of this OASIS Topic Maps Published Subjects Technical 
Committee is  to promote topic map inter-operability by providing 
recommendations for  defining and identifying subjects represented by 
topics in topic maps, standardized in ISO/IEC 13250:2002.  People as well 
as applications will be able to  "find" what the abstract representations 
point to: real subjects in the real world. Subjects defined and identified 
as such are called published subjects.

These recommendations are for electronic publishers,  developers and users 
of knowledge representations such as classifications, taxonomies, thesauri, 
and registries. Search engines, intelligent agents, and applications for 
knowledge representations  will also utilize these published subjects. When 
"applications" is mentioned in this recommendation, it will mean  the kinds 
of applications mentioned above.

(Something like this. I think we can streamline the first three paragraphs 
to only the essentials.)


>Despite
>this it is overall quite clear and understandable.
>
>--- Specific comments:
>
>First reaction: section 1 is very heavy reading. Not sure many people
>will actually be able to read it.

See what I wrote above.

Section 2.1
The punctuation needs to be corrected. the commas are placed inside the 
quotes; even better yet. forget about these quotes.
A subject can be an individual, like "Isaac Newton,"

Let's do this instead:

A subject can be an individual, like Isaac Newton, the apple that fell on 
his head, or the document describing the incident. It may be a class of 
individuals, like scientists or fruits. It may also be an abstract concept 
like gravity or inevitability.

(keep the examples focused on Newton, apple, etc. -- we don't need to drag 
ourselves into this in the form of OASIS, Topic maps, etc. :))

The example is good and the second paragraph is good too.


>2.2: Here we are not in line with the Reference Model, since what it
>calls SLUO we call CO. One or the other should be fixed. (CO is
>certainly a lot more attractive than SLUO.)
>
>2.2: "points of collocation"? I liked "binding points" better.

I still like "binding points" too. Why don't we use it and bring it up on 
the SC34 list.
Neither SLUO or CO is attractive to me and makes the subject more difficult 
sounding than it need be.

I have run out of time now, but will return later to comment on the other 
parts.

Cheers,
Mary


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>