DR 09-0322 - OPC: Types
caar at loc.gov
Wed Jan 6 15:24:24 CET 2010
I think there is a missing word in
specific instances of use the document
You probably mean:
specific instances of use in the document
If you do not think the labor involved in identifying where specific changes would be worthwhile is too burdensome, I would support it.
>>> Shawn Villaron <shawnv at microsoft.com> 01/05/10 1:31 PM >>>
Here is our proposal for addressing this DR.
Agree that there's benefit in additional defined terms. Update §4 Terms and Definitions to include the following term in place:
relationship type - A URI. Identifies the function of a relationship within the package, as defined in the Standard. Format designers may define new relationship types as needed.
However, we suspect that more important here is that the use of the word "type" be clarified in place in specific instances of use the document, that simple extensions to definitions may not be the best way to clarify the confusion. If there is agreement that is necessary and valuable, we would like to consider such an enhancement to the usability of the document.
See attached for additional context for this response.
More information about the sc34wg4