[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj] Jan 29 agenda
Mary Nishikawa >>| 7. If we are left with some time, figure out what use cases we >>| should consider as examples. (see Scott recent proposal on RDDL) >> >>I'll consider us very lucky if we get here. :-) >Scott, why don't you write up something for us to look over carefully next time. Yes, I intend to write something down (not up :-) regarding how people (like me) intending to adopt RDDL could make good use of the TM PubSubj recommendation. By the way, I just finished reading Bernard's latest update of our recommendations (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/psdoc. htm) with the following comments (Sections 2 & 3 only): 1) Thanks, Bernard, for making the excellent effort and keeping us honest. 2) Section 2 (a gentle introduction) is now quite readable (for a lay person :-). 3) I think we could also mention (in Section 2) that the same concept is equally applicable to non-TM approaches (e.g., RDF, Dublin Core, XML Namespaces, XLink, etc.) that incorporate URI as a means to identify and address resources. 4) I am still having a problem with the term "published subject documentation set" and the proposed definition. As mentioned in the meeting, I prefer to call it simply as "published subject documentation" with its definition as "The complete documentation about a set of published subject indicators and identifiers, as published by its publisher." Adding the extra word "set" seems to be more confusing (at least to me). Thanks, Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC