Terminology issues: Linking and addressing terms? Referencing andreferenced element?

Thanks, Gershon. I've now edited most of
the terms and handled all but five or six of the review topics. (Paul
and Jeff, I'll be sending you e-mail ...)

However, I noticed that the topic does not contain any of the linking
and addressing terminology; I thought we had agreed to move it there.

Also, it is lacking definitions for "referencing element" and
"referenced element"; can someone provide them?

Kris

Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) wrote:

  
  
  
Hi Kris,

  
 

  
I have updated the topic to address most of this
thread. The decision was to sort the items within each group
alphabetically. I have updated some of the group titles based on the
discussions during the TC meetings you missed. The main thing I have
not done is to ensure the new terms are correctly used throughout the
document, and that all old terms are removed or fixed, whichever is
appropriate.

  
 

  
There is likely to still be some quibbling over
the group titles, but I think I've addressed all the issues that were
discussed. In some cases no-one came up with better titles, so I left
the previous one or attempted to improve it.

  
 

  
--

  
Gershon

  
 

  

  

  From: Kristen
James Eberlein [mailto:] 

  Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:25 AM

  To: DITA TC

  Subject: [dita] Terminology issues: Grouping of terms

  

  

  I am reworking the Terminology topic according
to the review comments and the following discussion on the TC mailing
list:

  
    
results from recent DITA 1.2 terminology discussions
      

      From "Ogden, Jeff" <>
on 16 Nov 2009 23:40:36 -0000
      
        
RE: [dita] results from recent DITA 1.2 terminology
discussions 

          From "Tony Self" <>
on 18 Nov 2009 10:57:57 -0000
          
            
Re: [dita] results from recent DITA 1.2 terminology
discussions 

              From Eliot Kimber <>
on 18 Nov 2009 11:10:18 -0000
              
                
vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 1.2
terminology discussions] 

                  From "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> on 18 Nov
2009 15:30:56 -0000 

                
Re: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 1.2
terminologydiscussions] 

                  From Eliot Kimber <>
on 18 Nov 2009 15:34:19 -0000 

                
RE: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 1.2
terminology discussions] 

                  From "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> on 18 Nov
2009 16:35:54 -0000 

                
Re: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 1.2
terminologydiscussions] 

                  From Eliot Kimber <>
on 18 Nov 2009 16:38:50 -0000 

                
RE: [dita] Re: vocabulary module [was: results from
recent DITA 1.2 terminology discussions] 

                  From "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> on 18 Nov
2009 17:13:17 -0000 

              
            

          
        

      
  

    

  
  Can anyone clarify for me what decision was made
about how to group the terms? On the first terminology call which I
chaired, we decided that Gershon would attempt to devise an ordering
scheme, but that we would default to simply listing the terms in
alphabetical order if the group did not come to a consensus on how to
group the terms.

  

Was a grouping order agreed upon? Or should I simply alphabetize the
terms?

  

Kris

  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php