Re: [tm-pubsubj] Re: TC Website reorganization, and drafts update

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

Mary

Thanks for your input.
Your comments are added to the draft along with Lars Marius'
I will answer to all those comments at once later on.

Bernard

----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Mary Nishikawa" <nisikawa@fuchinobe.skk.slb.com>
À : "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>; "Lars Marius Garshol"
<larsga@garshol.priv.no>
Cc : "tm-pubsubj" <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Steve Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>;
"Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>
Envoyé : mardi 15 janvier 2002 05:14
Objet : Re: [tm-pubsubj] Re: TC Website reorganization, and drafts update


> Bernard,
>
> Thanks for putting this together. I have a few comments about the
> Recommendations:
>
> For the new definition proposal for published subject we now have, "A
> published subject is any subject for which at least one subject definition
> document has been made available by an identified publisher."
>
> How about this instead if we need to be more explicit:
>
> "A published subject is any subject for which at least one subject
> definition document at a stable URI has been made available for public use
> by the publisher identified within the published subject documentation."
>
>
> This is only for clarification, but for the subject indicator definition,
> the sentence that Lars Marius recommended is in addition to the first
> sentence and does not  replace it completely?
>
>   "A subject indicator is a resource that is intended by the topic map
> author to provide a positive, unambiguous indication of the identity of the
> subject. A resource can become a subject indicator by being referred to as
> such by some topic in  some topic map."
>
> For 3.2, in addition to the abbreviated list that Lars Marius proposed, can
> we also recommend to add dc:date with a comment that this is the date of
> publication? Is version information really needed or would this date suffice?
>
> Can we also add the acronyms in parenthesis to the published subject
> documentation (PSD)  and the subject definition document (SDD) definitions?
> There are no acronyms used for the other definitions in ISO 13250, so this
> may not be good to have acronyms for some but not for others. I just wanted
> to put this on the table to be thought about.
>
> It would be nice to have at least one  example of the PSD and the
> individual SDDs.
>
> Best regards,
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 07:49 PM 1/12/02 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >Lars Marius
> >
> >I've added your remarks along the draft where they belong
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/psdoc.htm
> >
> >I've added section 3 title which had been cut by mistake ... oops
> >"Recommendations for Published Subject Documentation"
> >
> >No special comment on my behalf for the moment, most of your remarks I
> >basically
> >agree upon at first sight.
> >Will think about it over the week-end ... "Devil is in the details" (Sam
> >Hunting)
> >
> >Other comments welcome and will be added the same way.
> >
> >I keep version 0.1 without added remarks at
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/psdoc_01.ht
> >m
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>