[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xmlvoc-comment] OASIS Vocabulary for XML Standards andTechnologies TC - Requirements (V0.1 Draft)
Initial comments on the requirements document: - 2.1 should perhaps have a sub-list to make it more readable? - 2.2 "limted" -> "limited" - 2.2 could perhaps be clarified somewhat: - core standards - standards built on core standards - tools - standards organizations - tool implementors - I would like to see a statement along the lines of "the vocabulary will only define classes and scopes, no instances". If we find we do want to define instance subjects that should be a separate deliverable, and its scope should be clearly defined. I'd be much happier for all instances to live in examples, though. - 2.4 I'd be happier to see shall for both XTHML and XTM - 2.8 I'd prefer to see XHTML and XTM switched. We are, after all, making recommendations for topic map ontologies. If we want to aim broader we could replace XHTML by RDF. - 4.1 I disagree with this one. We should definitely do this, as it is a very important area of XML. If we don't do this we will make our work a lot less useful. Note also that many W3C specs are of the same order as these, so the complexity ontology is not much affected. (And we're not doing instances, right?) -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC