[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] FW: J McClure RDF proposal for structuralmarkup
For the record, I felt the proposal on linking was a solid start. Needs to be traced back to a supported scenario and otherwise tightened, but I would support this being one of the votable requirements for candidate inclusion in our final requirements document. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Meyer <pmeyer@elkera.com.au> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:59:45 To:Legalxml-Econtracts <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] FW: J McClure RDF proposal for structural markup Hi John, Thanks for this, I confess I had only had time for a quick look at your citation requirements memo and did not fully appreciate the implications. I will be concentrating on the detail later in the day. Thank you for clearing up the RDF issue on the structural model. I believe that simplifies our direction. We did not consider name spaces in the basic clause model proposal. The initial proposal is not intended to preclude such a direction. It only tried to establish the basic skeleton. I don't understand all the issues at present and will need to investigate. I will take a closer look over the weekend. regards Peter > > > Hi Peter > > >John now appears to be saying that the structural markup > >must use RDF in order to support linking > > In last night's Citation Reqs memo, no explicit or implicit role > for RDF is > identified -- insofar as structural markup is concerned. I am > proposing though > that RDF be used to record metadata about the contract document. I am not > proposing any longer that RDF be used in any way for structural > markup or for > linking purposes. > > If you feel that the RDF Proposal for the Clause Model needs now > to be formally > withdrawn, then consider it done. I withdraw the RDF Proposal, without > qualification. > > I do propose a "Clause Model" in the Citation Reqs memo, one that > is based on > XML Namespaces, a topic and technology that I understand we are > now freer to > discuss than when constrained by the "preliminary consensus" achieved last > spring. This is *not* a new initiative from me. As many know, I > have been urging > since 2001 that we support XML Namespaces. The difference this > time around is > that I have provided proof that a standard that does not > explicitly support CSS > styling, and does not use Namespaces, is seriously flawed when it comes to > support for linking. > > Regards, > John > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the > roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/m > embers/leave_workgroup.php. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]