- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:12:04 -0700
- To: <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C020CEF52@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
Hi fellow eds. I'm still not sure exactly what we should do about terminology including references. I think there are 2 different approaches (with 2 variant on one of them) we can use: 1. Define the terms in 1 document and refer to those termdefs from another document. For example, attachment would need xtermrefs for policy, policy_assertion, etc. Option a) don't extract termdefs into the terminology section Option b) extract termdefs into the terminology section. 2. Define the terms in 1 document, extract termdefs into the terminology section of each doc, and refer to the glossary terms for terms not defined in current doc. For example, attachment would have a glossary section and then use termref for policy, policy_assertion, etc. I think I prefer 1, either a) or b). This way a policy attachment term link would go directly to the framework doc with all the context around the term. Note this isn't the way that Xquery does it. The F&O spec has a glossary with terms defined in the xquery spec. But I don't like that linking style. I'm also not sure if somebody has an AI to look into the term extraction into glossary, I don't think I have it. What do y'all think? Cheers, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2006 18:13:31 UTC