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

> We should defer this until after first WD publication

 

+ 1

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:05 PM
To: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject: RE: Actions: 9, 18, 11 completed, maybe 6?

 

I've taken a closer look at Action 6.  

 

We should defer this until after first WD publication because it
probably isn't a slam-dunk and time is short.

 

After WD publication, we can incorporate what we decide.  

 

I found that the introduction is actually very similar to the
terminology section.  I'd like to propose:

- have the definition start in their first occurrence including
introduction

- having the terms extracted in the terminology section, or not at all.

 

This is basically the XQuery model.   

 

I attach the html/xml of this rather than checking it in to prevent a
fork in the tree.  It was only about 20-30 minutes of work to do, so no
biggie if it's lost.

 

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: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:51 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Actions: 9, 18, 11 completed, maybe 6?

 


Dave, 

What if we do the definitions starting with their first occurance
**after** the Introduction with links from the defined terms 
used in the introduction to the definitions further down in the
document? That would address your concerns and make the 
introduction less formal and more introductory. 

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 07/19/2006 08:18:17 PM:

> 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