Maybe it could be added as a kind of note? eg "A set of one or more descriptions. The descriptions may be about different resources." While section 3 does give examples that show the descriptions can be about different things, I can just imagine someone reading the definition and thinking as it is a set it must be descriptions about the same thing?? (I don't mind if you decide to leave it out, I just thought it may help clarify)
Douglas
>>> Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 8/02/07 09:38:38 >>>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:31:23 +1300, Douglas Campbell
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>7. Terminology "description set" - suggest "A set of one or more
> descriptions [insert: about one or more resources]."
We took that out ;-) We changed it because
(a) it was slightly ambiguous - is it saying
(i) each one of the descriptions is "about one or more resources" or
(ii) the descriptions (plural) are "about one or more resources" or
(iii) "the set" is "about one or more resources"?
We could say "A set of one or more descriptions, each of which describes a
resource", but then:
(b) it's redundant - the definition of description already says it describes
a resource, so all we need to say is that a description set is a set of
descriptions.
(c) we were trying to make the textual description "follow" the formal model
as closely as possible: the relationship in the model is between description
and resource, not between description set and resource(s).
Cheers
Pete
|