- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:08:46 -0800
- To: "Natasha Noy" <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Natasha, Perhaps the only significant issue that we have not quite resolved is the nature and extent to which this note is specifically about subjects, as opposed to classes as vales more generally. You have convinced me that it is NOT about subjects, per se, so what remains is how best to communicate this to the reader. You do say it outright, but IMHO a reader could easily miss it [like I did] and get the wrong impression. Here are some ideas on how to approach this. I'm willing to have a go at implementing them. 1. Add the meningitis example to the other scenarios paragraph, and mention in each case what the property is that 'wants' to have classes as values (genereOfMusic, patientDiagnosis, etc). 2. re-emphasize the point in the summary and conclusions, giving the specific relation that is used instead of dc:subject (i.e. patitent diagnosis). One could even put in a figure for one of the approaches using a non-subject example, to bring home the point in a more convincing way. Having a non-subject example at the end of the document will address this. This way, a reader is less likely to mistakenly think that the document is only/mainly about subjects. If you like, you can give me the 'key' again, and I will make edits on the plane this evening. Mike
Received on Friday, 4 March 2005 15:09:20 UTC