[sc34wg3] RM: Comments on Topic Map Graphs

Mason, James David (MXM) sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:17:10 -0500

Yep. Did that sort of thing in 8879. Lots more licit than taking 27 words to
say what can be said in two one-character table cells.

Think about what the purpose of this section is, to establish that there are
eight arc types. The only reason you need prose is to explain the
significance of an AT arc, etc., and what was there didn't do that. So
there's no use wasting words on it.

Likewise for the section on well-formed nodes.

You need to establish the requirements as quickly as possible and get on to
the meaning. If you're not going to comment on meaning, you're wasting space
-- and not establishing a useful reference model.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hunting [mailto:shunting@etopicality.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:03 AM
To: 'sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org'
Subject: RE: [sc34wg3] RM: Comments on Topic Map Graphs

> This whole section could be replaced with simply the contents of the
> table in 0077.

Is that licit in ISO style?

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps 

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.

sc34wg3 mailing list