Re: [tm-pubsubj] Requirements Part 1 - Final draft

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

Lars Marius

> | #2 "The TC SHALL clarify the nature of and relationships between the
> | following concepts, and any new one it would think relevant to
> | introduce, to achieve accurate terminology on published subjects. In
> | this task, the TC SHALL seek conformance and consistency with ISO
> | 13250 specification. Any significant modification or extension in
> | terminology about published subjects SHALL be submitted to, and made
> | in coordination with, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34."

> I think this one needs a one-sentence para before the list of terms,
> in order to explain what that list contains.

Agreed. This could be done in sending to the end the content of the first sentence:

<p>
The TC SHALL provide and use accurate terminology on published subjects, in conformance
with ISO 13250, and if necessary introduce new terms consistent with this specification.
Any significant modification or extension in terminology about published subjects SHALL be
submitted to, and made in coordination with, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34.

In particular, the TC SHALL clarify the nature of and relationships between the following
concepts:
<list/>
</p>

> | #9 - Deleted - redundant with new wording of #2
>
> In that case I think #10 - #12 should be renumbered.

Agreed. I did not do it at that point for "backward consistency" :o))

> | #10 Replaced "publisher of a published subject" by "publisher of a
> | published subjects documentation".
>
> It must be "published of publishe subjects documentation"; that is, no
> "a". (Requirement #4 has the same problem.)

"published of publishe subjects documentation" ???
I guess you mean "publisher of published subjects documentation"

Agreed

> Other than that I think the requirements we have are good. I think the
> set of requirements is a little thin, that is, that we haven't really
> said very much about what we intend to do. The reason for that is, I
> guess, that we don't know, and it seems that the best way to find out
> is to just start working.

Agreed - see other thread about core issues.

Bernard