With regards to Peter's comments
>a) screed: this didn't look right and indeed my dictionary defines it as a
>"long tiresome harangue"; I don't think value judgements should come into
>play here. Perhaps document.personal, document.manuscript (I know, I know).
Hmm. Actually I have never known this to be defined as such. Webster's
defines it as: "a lengthy discourse" or "an informal piece of writing".
I think I first saw this used in AACR2 but I could be mistaken. In which
case, I think "screed" catches alot of informal kinds of writing.
"Personal" seems problematic since a big chunk of the web
seems to be personal...
"Manuscript" is a possibility but what kind of document are
you thinking of here? Is a manuscript a version of another
document, i.e. a book, an article, a screed?
>b) Just to add to your troubles: where would you put such computer-created
>documents as
> 1. CAD-CAM drawings
> 2. Organization charts
> 3. PERT and Gantt charts
> 4. Videogame
How about:
IMAGE.CADCAM or IMAGE.ENGINEERING
IMAGE.CHART
Games are something that are probably worth noting since
these will likely be a big deal in the near future. It might
be worth defining a first class genre for GAMES.
For example, with some subtypes:
GAMES.SOLITAIRE
GAMES.DUNGEON
GAMES.MULTIPLAYER
Another first class genre that I just thought of
might be CHAT or TALK services or sites that are
an ongoing discussion.
Example:
TALK.PUBLIC
TALK.PRIVATE
>In fact I suspect that too many levels are being mixed here, and not enough
>use of existing terminology. E.g. perhaps the art community could be
>consulted about the right generalities for graphic representations
>(they've spent a lot of time on it).
Agreed. But we should also avoid what has the potential to be a
listing of knowledge domain specific terminology. I still still
we need to have relatively few first class genres and then define
a few major subtypes. Otherwise the list will quickly become the
size of the average thesaurus! :-)
>I'm concerned about reinventing the wheel. A lot of terminological
>matters have been dealt with by other groups; you've done good work on
>developing categories and a structure, but that perhaps is what the
>specific groups could be asked to look at before we rush into it. Put
>another way, we shouldn't get too granular yet (which I think in fact
>is what you are saying). --pg
Agreed and yes, we should not get too granular.
</txk>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Terry Kuny Home Office: 819-776-6602
XIST Inc./ Email: [log in to unmask]
Global Village Research URL: http://xist.com/kuny/
Snail: Box 1141, St. B, Hull, Quebec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
|