OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] New Gentle Introduction


Steve Pepper wrote:

> This goes almost to the heart of my concerns about the text as it
> currently stands. I fear we simply *assume too much*. We don't
> answer the "why should I care?" question.

Use standard economic justification techniques: the theory of
Opportunity Cost implies decisions made on an analysis of "Regrets".

How much do we -- anyone -- stand to lose if we *don't* adopt
Published Subject technology as we propose it?

>> 5. 2.5.2 is excellent, something we can give even to the least aware
>>    publisher.
> 
> If that's true, we must be getting close :)

Not quite: I gave it to a publisher to read and he said "Whaaaaaa?"
Mind you, he has trouble finding the Return key...

The problem is that Jill and Joe User don't think in terms of logic.

> Thanks again, Peter. You didn't mention 2.6, which is the bit I'm
> least happy with.

Actually I thought it was pretty good. But maybe after a little
catachretic dissection...

> Anyone can publish PSIs, from the largest international organizations
> to communities of interest, enterprises and even individuals. There
> is no approval process and no registration authority. The development
> of PSI sets can therefore be a democratic and distributed process.

I'm not sure "democratic" is appropriate here: anarchic perhaps? :-)
It's actually much closer to the standard Internet model of software
development: rough consensus and running code. If the PSI set is done
according to spec (running code) and it's generally accepted by its
community as A Good Thing (eg the Association of Cider Makers links
to it for all queries aboue "Apples"), then it'll work.

> Whether a particular set of PSIs will actually be adopted by others
> will naturally depend on a number of factors, not least the
> publisher's visibility and the degree of trust it enjoys. The more
> authoritative a publisher is regarded as being, the greater will be
> the likelihood that its PSIs will enjoy widespread adoption. 

I think there will be a settling-down period. Evolutionary as you say.

> course, the definition of "authoritativeness" will vary according to
> the circumstances: Different criteria will apply if the goal is

lowercase "different"

> Thus there is no reason not to start using published subjects
> immediately. The sooner one starts, the greater the short- and
> long-term benefits in terms of interoperability within and between
> applications.

Time to start cutting code. We need a Do-It-Yourself PSIset publishing
kit in a box. You remember Spry's early Web kit, docs and disks of
their customized Mosaic in a brown cardboard box tied with string like
a birthday present. Made you itch to get home and rip it open and play
with it (well, some people anyway :-).

I did a mock-up of one for an XML Guerrilla Kit, camouflage box, tuck-in
flap, CD, manual, coupla buttons, pen and pencil, legally photocopyable
handouts to persuade colleagues to try XML, GPL'd overheads, etc etc.
Everyone at SGML98 liked the idea but all the publishers turned it down
(they didn't know what XML was, either). Too late now: I spend most of
my time persuading enthusiastic but unskilled managers *not* to adopt
XML for some grotesquely unsuitable project...

Maybe it's time for something to enable enthusiasts in any field to add
a PSI set to their fan/hobby Web site.

///Peter
-- 
Peter Flynn             P +353 87 807 8172            SGML, XML, XSL
Silmaril Consultants    F +353 21 434 6029            Linux systems
Cork, Ireland           W http://www.silmaril.ie/     LaTeX typesetting



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC