On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:49:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Which I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that
the relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that
any summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources.
Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs to
be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot pretend
that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of its
sources.>>
-----------------
Sure, provided that the additional information is simple infererence,
observation, deduction, with which a person "skilled in the art" would in
general
agree. We already cover this.
Actually, and this is my complaint, we currently demand that a person
*unskilled* in the art be able to do it.
-Phil