RE: [icom] Article

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Eric,

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:51 -0800, Eric Chan wrote:
> Hello Patrick,
> 

<snip>


To illustrate the problem with the text as written:

>  
> 
> They have the diagram, do we need to repeat the listing? 
> 
>  
> 
> There is a subtle difference, the plural word “attached Markers”
> combine the name “attachedMarker” with “cardinality 0..*” information.
> 
>  

That is exactly the sort of "subtle difference" that we need to avoid at
all cost.

That is obvious to you as the *designer* of the ontology but I don't
think you can find anyone at Oracle who would agree that is obvious on a
first, second or even third reading of the text. 

Why not be clear, explicit and non-repetitive (or at least consistent if
you are going to be repetitive?)? 

This is not a question of "technical people" or "technical content." 

Writing that is meant to communicate, clearly, is not subtle or clever. 

It is one of the reasons why standards and even materials to explain
standards are so boring. ;-) 

I know this is how you want to explain what you have done. That isn't
the question. The question is how to best explain it to others. Not the
same question. 

Yes?

Hope you are at the start of a great day!

Patrick