Re: a request for help

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:51:40PM -0400, Yoshio Fukushige wrote:
> 
> (1) A wrong reference to the linked document

Got it, thanks.

> Didn't we have a glossary of the terms in the document in earlier versions?
> Where has it gone?

We only ever had a glossary in HTML comments in the present doc. I
thought it was time to move those terms into a separate document,
which I'm not quite ready to check into CVS yet. But soon.

> I think we should have one.

Agreed.

> (3) Less phrase patterns in the Requirements?

> If no difference, less divergence will cause less ambiguity, I think.

The "It must be possible..." is vague as between whether the
requirement pertains to the query language, to the data access
protocol, to both, or to some other thing. In some cases the form of
the requirement which we approved pertains specifically to the query
language or to the data access protocol.

I'm not going to harmonize *these* differences away; however, I think
some precision can be gained here, and I've made those changes that
seemed to me appropriate.

> We should either cut off " , as well as other parts that may need to be
> replaced at the same time"  or add such item into the example code.

Hmm, I'm not terribly worried by this, but I have edited it a bit.

> (6) on 2.4 Monitoring News Events (Personal Information Management)
> 
>  + to change [[[ to record every television show about that news story
> automaticaly using the Electronic Program Guides (EPGs)]]]
>     into [[[ to record every television show that could feature the news
> story using Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs) and make an abridged version
> by extracting the very spots featuring it, using more detailed RDF
> description of the programme]]]

I don't really understand your suggested text; what's the point of the
modal form ("*could feature the news story")? 

> + (and even) to make "a particular news story" a concrete expression like
> "Ichiro"

Do you mean the baseball player Ichiro?

> (7) on 2.5 Avoiding Traffic Jams(Transportation)
> 
> It would be  more natural to suppose a car navigation system to do the work
> described in the use case, instead of the cellular phone.

Well, yeah, sorta-kinda. But the earlier version of this UC which did
just that was deemed to be too blue-sky by some. Or at least that was
the impression I got. But now we learned that Acura is doing something
a bit like this in its new version of the RL lux sedan. I may well
change the UC after this draft, but I'm gonna hold off for now till
there's more information.

Thanks, Yoshio, for all the comments. I don't know when the W3C's CVS
will be working again, but I'll check these changes in ASAP. (And, to
think, I just wrote a piece last week trying to convince the Atom
folks to jump to the W3C based, in part, on *superior support and
WG-resources* -- ouch! :>)

Best,
Kendall Clark

Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 21:38:05 UTC