[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Classes are singular nouns ... at least in ontologies
Bernard Vatant wrote: > I understand now most of your points and they make sense. I think the > bottom line of that debate is that we had not, to begin with, the same > vision of the target readers of the specification. My view was that we > target more the expert users (taxonomists, librarians, ontologists ...) > who are the most likely to be at least the early adopters. It seems that > you target a wider audience. Certainly we should clarify that, and I > guess it will turn out that you have the support of the TC majority, and > I will surrender. I also surrender :-) On re-reading some of it I think I may have too rosy a view of the likely audience. Perhaps the non-technical document should be left to a book. > There has been lately a debate in topicmapmail about TM specifications > (and people) being too technical, with known consequences in terms of We had the same criticism over the XML Spec. I'm afraid I'm unsympathetic: it's a formal spec -- get over it. Ancillary descriptions like Gentle Guides are different. > adoption and dissemination. I've been quite puzzled by those debates, > and carefully avoided to step in. But I guess we should not skip that > debate internally. My argument can be reduced to a nit: in English you can say a) the class of cigarettes (Marlboro, Camel, Gauloises...) b) the class <q>cigarette</q> c) the <q>cigarette</q> class d) the class cigarette::{Marlboro|Camel|Gauloises|...} (where <q> is some highlight) but not the class of cigarette (singular). ///Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC