RE: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Mark wrote:
 
>I disagree. I've hit many instances where the definition of an ISO term
makes no sense until you've read enough of the way through the document to
understand it. Alphabetical is fine for reference *after* you've read the
document, but it is a nice to have, and not a requirement. 

I agree, somewhat.  However, I find it useful to read the Terms first then
read the document whilst trying to remember the terms that are defined -
looking them up as I come across them to remind myself as to their meaning;
which by that time makes sense.  It means a bit of going backwards and
forwards sometimes but essentially it works in that there can be no
misunderstanding as to the authors intended meaning.  As Terminology is
really coming to the fore within industry this is now becoming quite
important. 
 
Reading and understanding ISO standards is an art in itself :-)
 
Best
 
Debbie
PS When I first started out in Standardization it took me ages to fathom out
the meaning of Data Categories - I hadn't read the Ts and Ds ;-)  I thought
it was something really obscure.
 
   
 
 


  _____  

From: Mark Davis [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 30 August 2007 17:47
To: Marion Gunn
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)



On 8/30/07, Marion Gunn <[e-mail]> wrote: 


On 30 Aug 2007, at 16:26, scríobh Mark Davis:



I find the typical Terms and Definitions sections at the start of many ISO
documents actually counter-productive. The items are presented before you
have any background for what the definitions really mean, and are in no
cohesive order. 



Alphabetical order is cohesive enough for most professional users. Added to
that, even for newbies, it is predictable, logical, consistent with ISO
documents in general, with which one would expect most users of this list to
be familiar. 


I disagree. I've hit many instances where the definition of an ISO term
makes no sense until you've read enough of the way through the document to
understand it. Alphabetical is fine for reference *after* you've read the
document, but it is a nice to have, and not a requirement. 

We are not writing an ISO document, and there is no requirement to follow
its format.





As you read the document, each technical term should be defined in the
paragraph where it is first used. If that is not the case, then please make
specific suggestions for additions to the text. 



Is that the case with regard to this particular document, Mark? Or - rather
than asking that question -  let us assume that it is, then have its editors
simply cut and past each "first use mention" into a "Terms and Definitions"
section, so that it can be used by those used to using dictionaries and ISO
documents with the same ease as it can be ignored by those who are not. 


No. I'm saying that if you personally, or anyone else on this list, finds a
case where a term is not clear on first usage, then you should point it out
and suggest additional text at that point. 





I'm not, in theory, against having a glossary of collected terms at the end
of the document for reference. 



Good. It would be a worry if you were against including in the document a
glossary of collected terms (I say this because I generally find myself in
agreement with much of the content of many of your msgs, and would not like
this to be different). 



But I don't think it is worth the time and effort compared to getting the
"first usage" instances correct. And it might better go in a "Language Tag
Tutorial". 



If you are proposing to compose a "Language Tag Tutorial", that would
probably be useful, as well  (but much more work for you to compile than the
usual "Terms and Definitions" component users of ISO standards find so handy
for ref.). 


No. I'm saying that if someone wants to write a tutorial, and collect terms,
that's fine. Go ahead.




mg





Mark


On 8/30/07, Marion Gunn < [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote: 

I am in total agreement with DG on this matter (as set out below in 
her msg of today - as cited below - which msg of hers echoes the
substance of one of mine of yesterday, I believe).
mg

On 30 Aug 2007, at 15:17, scríobh Debbie Garside: 

> ... I think to devise a Terms 
> and Definitions section would be very useful to newbies.  It would
> also
> cement the terminology for ease of use in other documents wishing to
> reference the RFC. 


- - 
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an 
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [e-mail] * [e-mail] *


_______________________________________________ 
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru






-- 
Mark 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru