[sc34wg3] RM: built-in arc, built-in assertion, built-in node, built-in subject

Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:44:38 -0500

--------------070608060705010900080400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martin,

Martin Bryan wrote:

>Patrick suggested:
>
>  
>
>>TXT: built-in arc
>>
>>FIX: A priori arc
>>    
>>
>
>Please please please avoid this term. Even if it is philosophically correct
>it is ugly and goes against current practice in the use of "required",
>"predefined" or "built-in".
>  
>
"Ugly?" Hmmm, aesthetics in ISO standards? Gee, I don't know... ;-)

"Required" really does not fit since I was trying to replace all 
occurrences of "built-in," which also occurs in places where a TM 
Application defines nodes for bootstrapping purposes. Since those can 
and will vary between Applications, the nodes could not be said to be 
required by the RM. Could be required by the TM Application but that 
would have us using "required" in two different senses and likely to be 
confusing.

If you think "a priori" is ugly, that is an opinion I have about 
"built-in."

Do like your suggestion of "predefined" on first blush. Does capture the 
idea of being set outside the current context. Does avoid our respective 
aesthetic objections to "a priori" and "built-in."

Does anyone know of any baggage that "predefined" might be carrying 
around with it that would cause problems?

Thanks!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps

--------------070608060705010900080400
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
Martin,<br>
<br>
Martin Bryan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid048f01c2dd7c$745b2a10$24cd66c3@yourudvgq1w43i">
  <pre wrap="">Patrick suggested:

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">TXT: built-in arc

FIX: A priori arc
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
Please please please avoid this term. Even if it is philosophically correct
it is ugly and goes against current practice in the use of "required",
"predefined" or "built-in".
  </pre>
</blockquote>
"Ugly?" Hmmm, aesthetics in ISO standards? Gee, I don't know... ;-)<br>
<br>
"Required" really does not fit since I was trying to replace all occurrences
of "built-in," which also occurs in places where a TM Application defines
nodes for bootstrapping purposes. Since those can and will vary between Applications,
the nodes could not be said to be required by the RM. Could be required by
the TM Application but that would have us using "required" in two different
senses and likely to be confusing. <br>
<br>
If you think "a priori" is ugly, that is an opinion I have about "built-in."
<br>
<br>
Do like your suggestion of "predefined" on first blush. Does capture the
idea of being set outside the current context. Does avoid our respective
aesthetic objections to "a priori" and "built-in." <br>
<br>
Does anyone know of any baggage that "predefined" might be carrying around
with it that would cause problems?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
Patrick<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu">pdurusau@emory.edu</a>
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------070608060705010900080400--