[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj] Requirements oddity
| "A Published Subject Indicator may provide human-readable metadata about | itself." | | But the "metadata" isn't really about "itself" is it? Sure: It's information such as the date on which the subject indicator was published. | Actually I think we need to revisit the entire document and re-write | using Published Subject, Published Subject Identifier and Published | Subject Indicator, written out in full and limit the use of PSI as | shorthand for Published Subject. Not a happy circumstance but would | accord with our usage up to this point. As I already pointed out, the committee decided to use two acronyms, PSI and PSID, neither of which expands to "published subject". Although I would have preferred to use a single acronym, I don't think it should expand to published subject. In my experience, that's not where we need it most. I would like people to be able to ask: "Is there a PSI for X?", meaning: "Is there a published subject indicator/identifier for X? Not "Is there a published subject for X?" "Is there a published subject for X?" is ungrammatical. You would have to ask: "Is X a published subject?", but it is more intuitive to ask: "Is there a PSI for X?" (or "Are there any PSIs for X?"). Steve -- Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net> Chief Executive Officer, Ontopia Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]