Those {comp} entries

["Jim Breen" <jimbreen@*********>]

Greetings,

Dennis has drawn attention to the number of entries
tagged as "comp" which have far wider usage. You can see
some of his comments in recent daily update summaries, e.g.
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/dicsubs/2008-08/subs2008-08-20.html
(About 1/4 of the way down there are a clutch of "bibliography"
entries where the labelling is off.)

This was really to be expected as a result of rolling in all
those "compdic" entries. You may recall I wondered how much
prior checking was needed (there were about 12,000 entries involved)
but the consensus seemed to be that it was best to roll the in
and clean up later, which is what we are now doing.

It is probably useful to reflect on what the "comp" label actually
means. I have been taking it to mean "this term has particular application
in the ICT field, although it may also be used elsewhere". I don't mean
it to imply that the term is ONLY used in ICT. The test I apply
is "if one were to extract a subset of entries to form an ICT-oriented
dictionary/glossary, sould this entry be included?". If the answer is
"yes", then it gets a "comp" tag.

Hope this helps

Jim

PS: I see there are 82 entries wheich contain the word "computer", but
don't (yet) have a "comp" tag. Some, such as スパコン and 不正アクセス
clearly should.

-- 
Jim Breen
Honorary Senior Research Fellow
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/