[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [tm-pubsubj] Points from psdoc post 29/01
Bernard Vatant wrote: > Folks > > I want to thank again all and every participant in today conf call. I think we had a very > fruitful meeting. I've made some provisional modifications on psdoc, while it was fresh in > my head - and adjusted the terminology throughout section 4. I was glad to be able to start participating at last! The Gentle Guide is taking shape nicely, just one small nitpick: 2nd para: How do topic maps deal with subjects? First they represent subjects formally as abstract "topics". In XTM documents, topics are represented by a <topic> XML element. A topic should represent an unique, well-defined, non-ambiguous subject. ******* This equates 1 topic with 1 subject, whereas the rest of the text talks about "topics" and "subjects" (plural) which may confuse the reader. 4. A published subjects documentation shall include a formal statement from its publisher, expliciting its conformance to this recommendation, and its intention to maintain the documentation trustable, and the PSIs stable. Having just had a discussion with a colleague about the venality of publishers :-) I wonder if Requirements #4 is enough to stop the indiscriminate publisher from simply lying about the trustworthiness and stability? Once this takes off and the marketing people get into the act, will we see XTM spam masquerading as useful information? 4.3.2: is it our job to go as far as writing a *canonical* DTD/schema for PSIs (as hinted at in Requirements #3), like Bernard's pubsubj.dtd? ///Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC