[sc34wg3] Notation in TMCL 3.3-3.10

Patrick Durusau patrick at durusau.net
Mon Mar 29 20:45:40 EDT 2010


This is more of a style issue than a bug so I am posting it to the list.

The mixture of "at," "t," "a," and the notation from the TMDM, [parent], 
and [roles played] is really annoying.

Particularly since the typeface difference for "at," and "t," for 
example is barely distinguished from the surrounding text.

And, there is no reference that even points to the TMDM as the source of 
the other notation.

I realize it would not be easy but since the TMDM constructs only occur 
here (and in 6.3 to 6.6, [type]), could we have a uniform notation that 
is defined in TMCL?

May I suggest *t* bold face for the variables?

I really have too much other stuff to do but would be willing to 
volunteer to work up a proposal for a syntax to replace the TMDM 
constructs with something defined in TMCL. It is difficult enough 
without switching notations on people.

Remember, the question isn't whether the editors understand the text as 
written but whether other people will be able to understand the text as 

Hope everyone is having a great day!


Patrick Durusau
patrick at durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list