I disagree with this usage. "Obviate" to me means "render unnecessary", as in "I was thinking of getting a Mini, but my new jetpack obviates the need for a car."
I'm pretty sure that the object of obviate, in the sense that it's being suggested here, typically refers to something specific (and usually disadvantageous) that would have been needed if it weren't for x. Note, though, that you can use it in a way that connotes obsolescence. So, you might see something like:
"The transistor obviated the need for bulky, inefficient, and failure-prone vacuum tubes in computer electronics."
but not:
"The transistor obviated the vacuum tube."
or even
"The transistorized computer obviated need for vacuum-tube computers."
Which is actually correct usage, I think, but not idiomatic, since here the computer is the end goal, and things that you obviate are often annoying necessities you face in pursuit of a (named or unnamed) greater goal. In an example nearer to your case, you might explain that your new approach's use of Johnson splines obviates the need for the Kalamazoo quadrature that the old paper uses, but I don't think you'd use obviate to describe the relationship of the new paper (as a whole) to the previous paper.
I haven't actually used the word in a sentence before. I find the online dictionaries to be sorely lacking. If I got the subject and object messed up, I am sorry. A friend used the word while discussing his MS thesis a few weeks ago, but I don't remember his exact usage. Could the sentence be "My journal paper obviated the contents of an earlier poster session?"
if you want to be bold about it, just go ahead and say "obsoleted". It's a word that does get some use, and I like it and think it should be used. If not, the circumlocution "X was made obsolete by Y" works ok.
CMU-CS-06-129 Symmetric Public/Subscribe via Constraint Publication Anthony Tomasic, Charles Garrod, Kris Popendorf Abstract, .ps, .pdf Superceded by CMU-CS-06-129R link
"Supercedes" is if the new paper is identical to the old, except for a bit more work / fewer typos / conference acceptance, so that it's pointless to read the old.
"Subsumes" is if the new paper is rewritten and has more or better results, so that it's perhaps historically interesting to read the old.
Fascinating. I thought I was going to look it up in the dictionary and make you shirk in dishonor at your idiotic question, MWAHAHA. But in fact, it seems that all the dictionaries say "supersedes" -- even though google confirms that the spelling "supercedes" is also extremely common, especially in technical settings. The dictionary etymology says that it flipped from 's' to 'c' in old french, and back to 's' in modern english. Except for technical people, who I guess missed the memo about making sure to attach an extra curve to the word.
If you're looking to phrase things more positively, you could say something like that the papers improves upon/updates/expands/extends/furthers/etc the work in the poster.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gusl![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 01:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 03:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 04:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 04:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 05:18 am (UTC)"The transistor obviated the need for bulky, inefficient, and failure-prone vacuum tubes in computer electronics."
but not:
"The transistor obviated the vacuum tube."
or even
"The transistorized computer obviated need for vacuum-tube computers."
Which is actually correct usage, I think, but not idiomatic, since here the computer is the end goal, and things that you obviate are often annoying necessities you face in pursuit of a (named or unnamed) greater goal. In an example nearer to your case, you might explain that your new approach's use of Johnson splines obviates the need for the Kalamazoo quadrature that the old paper uses, but I don't think you'd use obviate to describe the relationship of the new paper (as a whole) to the previous paper.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 05:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 06:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 12:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 02:49 am (UTC)supercedes
Date: 2008-03-02 02:50 am (UTC)Symmetric Public/Subscribe via Constraint Publication
Anthony Tomasic, Charles Garrod, Kris Popendorf
Abstract, .ps, .pdf
Superceded by CMU-CS-06-129R
link
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 03:41 am (UTC)"Subsumes" is if the new paper is rewritten and has more or better results, so that it's perhaps historically interesting to read the old.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 05:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 08:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 03:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 06:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 06:46 am (UTC)This is an English question.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 08:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 08:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-02 05:05 pm (UTC)