Hi Laufer,
I prefer "human readable" and "machine readable". Or we can simply say "for
> humans" and "for machines".
>
> Final users will be interested in "human readable" stuff. Developers will
> be interested in "machine readable" stuff. We have both audience.
>
That reminded me that it's actually the approach taken by CC when providing
several versions of the same content. Quoting [1], "One way of thinking
about Creative Commons is that we give a user-interface to copyright law
through our human readable deeds, machine readable metadata, and lawyer
readable licenses.".
So content can be adapted for the targeted consumer, we could maybe add one
more entry in the glossary to precise how we understand "X readable" and
explain that this understanding is shared with others (CC and probably more)
Christophe
[1] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/12778
--
Onderzoeker
DANS, Anna van Saksenlaan 51, 2593 HW Den Haag
+31(0)6 14576494
christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS/KNAW)*[image:
http://dans.knaw.nl] <http://dans.knaw.nl>
*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
*World Wide Semantic Web community*
http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/