[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Requirements Part 1 - Final draft
Bernard Vatant wrote: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/requirements/part1.htm > > Hope it's final ... Some remarks > > I have used throughout the latest version of terminology. > > -- "published subjects documentation" (was "published subject documentation") > > -- "subject definition resource" (was "subject definition document") > For that one, according to Murray, we should use "subject definition addressable > resource", but I figure it is heavy and over-accurate. I would suggest to keep the simpler > wording, and make sure that its definition in the glossary makes it clear that "resource" > in that expression means "addressable resource". [...] That's the way I'd do it too. > #5 - Replaced "URI that is the subject indicator reference" by "URIs used as subject > indicator references" > > #6 - Replaced "which URIs shall be used to address the published subject documentation" > by "which URIs shall be used to address the subject definition resources" [...] > #11 Replaced "URIs are used to establish published subjects" by "URIs are used to identify > published subjects". I did not figure why we had put "establish" there. > > Please review in details The only comment I have is that you need to maintain the distinction between "URI" and "URI Reference". The URI is the string, the URI reference is the string used in context as a reference to something else (I think that's basically it). I can't remember which RFC describes this, but the W3C has attempted to clarify some of the issues: http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ Murray ........................................................................... Murray Altheim <mailto:murray.altheim@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Java and XML Software Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Corporations do not have human rights, despite the altogether too-human opinions of the US Supreme Court.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC