RE: Actions: 9, 18, 11 completed, maybe 6?

I think the first use is often in the introduction or the abstract.  I
see in XQuery http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/ that they do a few of the
definitions in the introduction, then the bulk of them starting in
section 2, basics.  

 

Following that model, we would have the bulk of our definitions in the
introduction.  I slightly worry that may make the introduction too
formal, too hard to read, and not very "introductory".  But that seems
to be the best way forward.

 

What say y'all to doing the definitions first occurrence starting with
the introduction, or some other approach?

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B
Ferris
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 4:56 AM
To: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject: Re: Actions: 9, 18, 11 completed, maybe 6?

 


My understanding of the action is that the consensus of the WG was that
the definitions appear inline 
in the prose of the document where they first appear. We can then use a
transform to collect all of the 
termdefs together into a glossary section. 

Basically, what is needed is for each defined term, find its first use
and insert the definition there. 

Cheers, 

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295 

public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org wrote on 07/18/2006 04:08:24 AM:

> I think that 6 - the ref in the cvs comments is wrong by a day, it's 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06 - might
> not actually be done.  All I did was move the element policy into 
> the terminology section.  The terms all seem defined in proper 
> xmlspec format. I didn't add any references to the terms.  The minutes
say 
> Terminology section 2.3 review paul asks whether all terms defined 
> in this section 
> Terms defined are not the same 
> Discussion of options for links between definitions and uses. 
> <maryann> q 
> paul asks editors to consider how links of defs to uses 
> <cferris> ack 
> <scribe> ACTION: editors to align termdef with other w3c style
[recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06] 
> <cferris> note: paulc had suggested e.g. XML Query's use of termdef 
> Then it said Felix got the issue on which terminology is normative, 
> felix, xquery style explained. Issue of which occurence of defintion
> is normative 
> <scribe> ACTION: felix, to draft issue about which terminology is 
> normative [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-
> minutes.html#action07] 
>   
>   
> What do y'all think?  More supposed to be done? 
>   
> Cheers, 
> Dave