*Lars Marius
> Comments on the deliverable:
Only "comments", not grumble. We are moving forward indeed :))
> - Section 1, para 1: published subjects is not just about legacy,
> though
Good remark. Will add something here.
> - Section 2: I don't think we should put in a formal definition of
> 'subject'. That's already in ISO 13250, and we don't need to repeat
> it here. Quoting the definition is OK, though probably not
> necessary, but it shouldn't be a formal numbered definition.
> (Ditto for 'topic', 'subject indicator', etc.)
Ah. Good point. They are not new. But I wanted them to show off somehow.
Will figure how to make it.
> Also, if we *do* quote the definitions we should make sure we get
> them correct and use the latest ones (currently, that's the ones in
> the SAM.)
You mean they are not correct as they are? Have to check the wording.
> - Section 2: Lonely, boldfaced list items appear here and there
> throughout the text, but my visual parsing module can't work out
> what they're supposed to do. Perhaps they should be removed or
> turned into something else? Maybe they are really headings?
Shh ... they are (should be) really headings, right
> - Section 2.2, example: I think the example needs explanatory text so
> that people know how to interpret the diagram.
Certainly. In fact I had made the second diagram first (section 2.3) with explanations.
Then I added that one, but explanations were forgotten.
> - Section 2.3: A more serious problem with unpublished subject
> indicators is that usually they are not unambiguous. That is,
> people might conceivably use the same subject identifier to mean
> different things. The second example shows this very clearly. Is
> the subject apples in general, the kind of apple of which the one
> pictured is an instance, that particular apple, red apples (as
> opposed to yellow or green ones), or something else?
So. Does that mean you would add/modify/delete something in that section?
> - Section 2.3: I think this example needs more explanation as well.
OK. I know I tend to be verbose, so I tried to moderate myself. Maybe too much here.
> - Section 3, req #1: "a URI". :-)
Ohh, YES ... perseverare diabolicum ...
But this rule is one mystery of English to me. What I learnt is:
1. The article "a" becomes "an" when the name initial is a vowel
2. "u" is a vowel.
So ... where did I go wrong? Is that an exception?
> - Section 4: do we need it, given that we already have given examples
> in section 2?
See other message
Bernard
