[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Recommendations for PubSubj Documentation - version0.2
I think this draft is still *very* rough and incomplete, but it does represent a step forward. It seems that the next issue for us to decide is that of recommended syntax for the PSD and SDRs. I think we should recommend a syntax, but also to derive some syntax-independent general guidelines. We're not there yet, though. - section 1, para 1 says "subjects (reified by topics)", but should say "represents" instead. Reification is a special kind of representation, and the general relationship between topics and their subjects is one of representation. - the term "published subjects documentation" seems to be awkward to use in prose, which makes me think we should change it. One way would be to add "set", "module", or "package" at the end. That would make it fit much more naturally into sentences. - section 2 I think should be replaced by explanatory text that clearly establishes the meaning of each term and its relationship to the others. An alphabetically ordered glossary is very hard to learn from, and in any case unnecessary in a hypertext world. - most of the definitions in section 2 I think are also too brief. - section 3.1: this is much too brief. We need to go into the why, and also the how. - section 3.2: again much too brief. Also, much of this information is not useful unless it is provided in machine-processable form. - section 3.3.2: yes, and this syntax should be XTM. - annex A: I think this ought to be the main part of the recommendation. Why do you want to push this out into the periphery? --Lars M.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC