Is "label" also what we mean when we say "token," another term that we
sometimes use but may not have sufficiently defined or explained.
BTW, I do support dropping "identifier" in favor of "label."
--Erik
Erik Jul
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Perkins [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 2:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: DCQ pre-ballot comment: Identifier?
>
>
> Ren,
>
> I have found in the past when trying to communicate CIMI standards
> work that using ISO 11179 make documents more confusing and more
> complicated. It was a nice idea to adhere to ISO 11179 but in the
> end we dropped it because of adverse reaction from our users.
>
> If we do use it we must make sure that the documents are structured
> and presented in a way that confusion is minimised. Our current
> ballot does not do this. Best, JP
>
> At 11:27 AM +1000 3/13/00, Renato Iannella wrote:
> >--On 9/3/00 6:20 PM -0500 John A. Kunze wrote:
> >
> >
> >>would simplify, without loss of information, to
> >>
> >> 37) Is Part Of
> >>
> >> Label: isPartOf
> >>
> >> Definition: The described resource is a physical
> or logical
> >> part of the referenced resource.
> >>
> >>
> >>The change would be consistent with the published RFC's terminology
> >>while remaining consistent with ISO 11179 presentation style.
> >
> >Identifier is mandatory in ISO11179. Please lets not mess with
> >this. We have other things to worry about!
> >
> >
> >Cheers...Renato <http://purl.net/net/renato>
> >Chief Scientist, IPR Systems <http://www.iprsystems.com>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|