OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing terms? Referencingand referenced element?


A few suggestions if you are open to something cleaner and which adheres to terminology best practices. Since the 2nd defintion proposed by Kristen already contained the word "target", I tried this as the verb in the definitions rather than "address" which I find ambiguous. The main change is not to repeat what the referencing element does in the definition of the referenced element. Also, please lower case the terms. There should also be a cross reference in both entries.

I also would prefer to remove the list of attributes if they can be grouped into a definition elsewhere as suggested by Kirsten. I've modelled that below in the 2nd proposal but I don't know enough about these attributes to know if it is correct.

First proposal - attributes listed in definition of referencing element

referencing element
An element that targets another DITA element by using one of the following attributes:

See also referenced element.

referenced element
An element that is the target of another DITA element. See also referencing element. Second proposal - separating attributes to their own entry

referencing element
An element that targets another DITA element by using an addressing attribute. See also referenced element.

referenced element
An element that is the target of another DITA element. See also referencing element.

addressing attribute
One of the following attributes, which are used by a referencing element to target a referenced element:
Kara Warburton
IBM Terminology
Office: 905-413-2170
Mobile: 905-717-8014

IBM terminology: http://w3.ibm.com/standards/terminology
Education about IBM terminology: http://w3.tap.ibm.com/medialibrary/media_set_view?id=4981

Inactive hide details for Joann Hackos ---12/03/2009 08:47:07 AM---I really think we need examples here ― the definitions are Joann Hackos ---12/03/2009 08:47:07 AM---I really think we need examples here ― the definitions are too circular, which isn’t surprising cons


From:

Joann Hackos <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>

To:

Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>

Cc:

"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>, Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>, DITA TC <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date:

12/03/2009 08:47 AM

Subject:

Re: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing terms? Referencing and referenced element?




I really think we need examples here — the definitions are too circular, which isn’t surprising considering the concept is circular. You need three elements to make a concept understandable: a definition, an example, and a non-example. We have the first part, but are missing the example and maybe the non-example.

I recommend an example — that would easily clarify the idea we’re trying to convey.
JoAnn


On 12/3/09 5:32 AM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <
kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]