Re: [emergency] EM TC 2/25/03 Meeting Minutes

[duane@xmlglobal.com]

Hello all:

I recently subscribed to this list and wanted to comment on the latest
minutes.
1. ISSUE  - Gartner appears highly concerned with the concept of XML
languages (theyare all different) and how they conflict with each other.
[DN] Gartner is concerned over the proliferation of languages and
duplications of standards efforts in general.  XML is not to blame for
this since the issue of standards largely arises from definitions of
taxonomies.  XML is a syntax which has nothing to do with semantics at
all.  The ROI of XML is that parties who use XML have only to use one
parser for all their XML based standards.  Without XML, every single
taxonomy used to hammer out their own syntax causing implementors lots of
grief as they had to implement multiple applications to parse the multiple
taxonomies.
2. * Eloit - this is an excellent point.  There are lots of XML without
attention to semantics, these XML groups have failed to nail down
semantics (so have incomplete solutions)[DN] XML, XML Schema, Namespaces etc. have nothing to do with semantics. 
XML is only a syntax.  The semantics arise when two or more parties agree
what a group of elements and attributes mean.  Most XML groups do define
what they mean by their element.
The discussion in #1 and #2 above are highly relevant to the problem that
there are relatively few "crosswalks" to equate semantics between
different taxonomies.  Some recent work in the area of ebXML has started
to get deeper into this area by estabishing a high level set of
information components for eBusiness.  The theory is that existing
taxonomies will be able to interoperate by referencing and harmonizing
with the semantics of the Core Components.  More information can be found
at www.ebxml.org.
Duane Nickull