I agree with your suggested change as to the definition... although
I'm not so sure about rearranging how we express
required/optional/conditional. That's more of an Issue 29 question.
- Art
At 8:39 PM -0500 12/1/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>Great! The word "type" was what threw me into feeling it was taking more
>technical, then editorial. I will add as issue #32 in the spreadsheet,
>and at the same time propose the following:
>
>[Original]
>The text describing the type and content of the resource file
>(required).
>
>[Proposed]
>Required human-readable text description of the resource.
>
>On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 12:03, Art Botterell wrote:
>> At 3:16 PM +0000 12/1/03, wrote:
>> >Would it not be better to use <resourceDesc> as a human-readable
>>description
>> >of the resource itself?
>>
>> That's what was intended, so if that isn't clear we should reword the
>> definition.
>>
>> - Art
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>>roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>--
>R. Allen Wyke
>Chair, OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
