Re: NEW ISSUE: Clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the framework / in the attachement document

Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> 
> My preference is to define the terms that are needed in the Framework in
> the Framework document, then additional terms needed in Attachments in
> that document. Add note to Attachments that other terms associated with
> Framework are defined in that document.

this seems to be close to b) , and I would be fine with it.

Felix

> 
> This was suggested at F2F, seems logical.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:31 PM, ext Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 
>> Title - Clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the framework
>> / in the attachement document.
>>
>> Description -
>>
>> We should clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the
>> framework / in the attachement document.
>>
>> Justification -
>>
>> Some terms are defined in both documents, see [1] and [2]. People who
>> want to normatively reference these terms should have only one target.
>>
>>
>> Target -
>>
>> The sections at [1] and [2].
>>
>> Proposal -
>>
>> I see two possibilities:
>> a) Have the term definitions as they are, but adding to one of them a
>> statement like "the normative reference for this definition is at xxx".
>> "xxx" points to the target definition in the other document.
>> b) Have the overlapping definitions only in one document, and pointers
>> in the other.
>>
>> I have no preference for a) or b).
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html#Terminology
>>
>> [2]
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachement.html#Glossary
>>
>>
>>
>> Felix
> 
>