RE: terminology references

WG adopted 1 b (as described below) for issue 3562. I think this is
related to your action:

 

ACTION: Dave to own
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01 [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]

 

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:12 AM
To: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject: terminology references

 

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