>I propose: > >o each concept has a natural defining home, e.g. abstract syntax stuff in >concepts, schema stuff in ... > >o the editors of the 'natural home' for a concept or term get to define it. > >o other editors MUST refer to that definition and MAY quote all/part of it. > >o editors MUST NOT create their own definitions for terms or invent terms >whose natural home is in another document > >o editors are encouraged to add a glossary to their documents > >o we will create an internal WG document for style issues and keep a list >of common terms and their natural home there. [...] At 08:22 PM 10/31/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >"An awful lot of delay" is not good news. I proposed a kinda of >idealistic view which I guess is where we'd like to be when we are >done. What do you see as the most practical way to get there? If we accept that's an ideal, maybe we push on as we are, except that anyone who spots a multiply defined term, or concepts named differently, brings it to the relevant editors' attention for resolution. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 16:05:21 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:36 EDT