[sc34wg3] Some general comments on the RM (branching from the
thread Re: [s c34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO 13250)
Mason, James David (MXM)
Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:24:07 -0400
Charles went overboard on the glossary in 8879. He originally didn't have
one. Joan Smith (who threatens to be at SC34 in London, long time no see)
told him that ISO required one. So he went out of his way, with her egging
him on, to make up a long one. Of course, 8879 is a lot longer standard than
the RM. I think we could cut the glossary by 75% and be adequate.
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Some general comments on the RM (branching from
the thread Re: [s c34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO
Just a brief reply on your comment on the definitions in the glossary,
Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:
>Definitions like 2.10, that simply expand an
>initialism or acronym, belong somewhere else, either in a list of
>initialisms or simply folded back into the primary topics.
I may be partially responsible for the expansion of acronyms practice,
which I used in my first draft of the glossary.
I was following the style of ISO 8879, which has entries like:
4.146 GI: Generic identifier (which is preceded by the definition for
4.229: PCDATA: Parsed character data (which is preceded by a definition
for parsed character data)
I have no strong feeling about it one way or the other but is there a
consensus on either of the options Jim suggests?
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps
sc34wg3 mailing list