Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] New Deliverable 1 draft

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

*Lars Marius

> Comments on the deliverable:

Only "comments", not grumble. We are moving forward indeed :))

>  - Section 1, para 1: published subjects is not just about legacy,
>    though

Good remark. Will add something here.

>  - 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.)

Ah. Good point. They are not new. But I wanted them to show off somehow.
Will figure how to make it.

>    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.)

You mean they are not correct as they are? Have to check the wording.

>  - 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?

Shh ... they are (should be) really headings, right

>  - Section 2.2, example: I think the example needs explanatory text so
>    that people know how to interpret the diagram.

Certainly. In fact I had made the second diagram first (section 2.3) with explanations.
Then I added that one, but explanations were forgotten.
 
>  - Section 2.3: A more serious problem with unpublished subject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?

So. Does that mean you would add/modify/delete something in that section?

>  - Section 2.3: I think this example needs more explanation as well.

OK. I know I tend to be verbose, so I tried to moderate myself. Maybe too much here.

>  - Section 3, req #1: "a URI". :-)

Ohh, YES ... perseverare diabolicum ...
But this rule is one mystery of English to me. What I learnt is:
1. The article "a" becomes "an" when the name initial is a vowel
2. "u" is a vowel.
So ... where did I go wrong? Is that an exception? 

>  - Section 4: do we need it, given that we already have given examples
>    in section 2?

See other message

Bernard