Re: [tm-pubsubj] New Gentle Introduction

[Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>]

Steve Pepper wrote:
> [1] Why not take the time to do it *now*, rather than put it off until
> later... :)

This is very good.

1. The concept of merging topic maps is introduced via an oblique
    reference (2.2, "When aggregating information through merging
    topic maps"). Do we need to explain why one might want to merge
    topic maps at all?

2. In 2.4.1, para after the Note, "Provided with a subject indicator,
    human users should be able to know what subject the topic
    represents." There isn't an antecedent referent for "the topic"
    here, and the reader may have forgotten the basic premise in 2.2
    ("Every topic must represent exactly one subject and every subject
    must be represented by exactly one topic.") because that's quite
    a long way back.

3. In the headings for 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 can we highlight "Indicator"
    and "Identifier" (bold italics, underline, whatever) to emphasize
    the distinction between the two sections?

4. In 2.5.1, can we emphasize the caveats from "whether or not..."
    to the end of the second sentence?

5. 2.5.2 is excellent, something we can give even to the least aware
    publisher.

6. In 2.5.3, do we assume the reader understands that this is all
    subject to standard business uncertainty (ie Fruit.Org, Inc, is
    taken over by International Juice Conglobulation, Pty, who don't
    give a pith about Published Subjects and who trash the server?

///Peter