Organization for Advanced...

[<dill2@gefeg.com>]

Hello TC,
I remember that Hisano told me during the ATG meeting in Walldorf that he is
mainly interested in semantic interoperability. The use of CC both in
spreadsheet and schema documentation is a step into exactly this direction
and we need clarity and exactness to handle CCTS and DEN. Also I believe
that the model based approach with it's possibilities for semantic
interoperability is one of the major UBL con's. U.S. opinion makers, who
told me that UBL is just a re-invention of the wheel, were not aware of the
model based approach!

Second, I think, that business users will use the spreadsheets as we can see

them just now and they will study the formulas in order to figure out how
the methodology
works.

Therefore please let me say that I do have my doubts whether we can afford
to 
neglect the formal correctness of the spreadsheets, at least for 1.1.

Of course there has been a long development of these including changes of
approaches etc. And all of us know how much work it is to change and
re-change a program after each call...

But neither this nor any problems associated with mere mortals endeavouring
to 
develop correct formulas should be a reason to agree with errors or an
inappropriate
methodology.

Third I imagine how unhappy we could be to read newspaper articles gossiping
about that the Organization for Advanced... announces that the non-normative
data which are used to generate normative schemas must not be considered as
correct in all aspects, but assures that the important ones are correct.

In other words, we should correct what we can, even not necessarily today.


Best regards,
Michael



--

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>