[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] New Deliverable 1 draft
Comments on the deliverable: - Section 1, para 1: published subjects is not just about legacy, though - Section 2: I don't think we should put in a formal definition of 'subject'. That's already in ISO 13250, and we don't need to repeat it here. Quoting the definition is OK, though probably not necessary, but it shouldn't be a formal numbered definition. (Ditto for 'topic', 'subject indicator', etc.) Also, if we *do* quote the definitions we should make sure we get them correct and use the latest ones (currently, that's the ones in the SAM.) - Section 2: Lonely, boldfaced list items appear here and there throughout the text, but my visual parsing module can't work out what they're supposed to do. Perhaps they should be removed or turned into something else? Maybe they are really headings? - Section 2.2, example: I think the example needs explanatory text so that people know how to interpret the diagram. - Section 2.3: A more serious problem with unpublished subject indicators is that usually they are not unambiguous. That is, people might conceivably use the same subject identifier to mean different things. The second example shows this very clearly. Is the subject apples in general, the kind of apple of which the one pictured is an instance, that particular apple, red apples (as opposed to yellow or green ones), or something else? - Section 2.3: I think this example needs more explanation as well. - Section 3, req #1: "a URI". :-) - Section 4: do we need it, given that we already have given examples in section 2? -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC