RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

I actually quite like Eduardo's:

 

 Documentation Standards Interoperability TC.

 

"Documentation" is vague enough IMHO - and people will likewise need to read the charter for explicit clarifications - legal documentation, technical documentation, process documentation, geospatial, et al?  Yes!

 

Even with an inferred narrow definition on "documentation" - as purely technical - that's still a huge use case involving terrabytes of content!  And I like the "Standards Interoperability" in there.

 

I'm not sure I'd go into machine v human readable - since that distinction is rapidly being eroded by smart machine agents.  I think its the role that's important - semantic based language content vis simple business content - e.g. numbers and code values vis stuff that is informational content in nature with classification and DITA mappings.

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, April 23, 2007 2:08 pm
To: "Earley, Jim" <Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>
Cc: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org, "Hudson, Scott"
<Scott.Hudson@flatironssolutions.com>


Is "documentation" too restrictive a term though? Human-readable business documents are not "documentation" necessarily, yet are within the use cases we've discussed.

For maximum clarity we'd probably need something like "Interoperability between XML document standards for human-readable content".  Maybe another way to differentiate human-readable from machine-oriented would be information vs. data - could we say

"XML Information Standards Interoperability"?

But we might just be opening the door to the next round of clarifications :-/ Almost anything short enough to fit into a TC name is going to be open to multiple interpretations, so maybe we just need something provocative enough to get people to read the charter, where we can spell out what we mean in more detail.

I do think we need "XML" in the title to differentiate us from PDF or Word or paper documents.

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

"Earley, Jim" <Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>

04/23/2007 01:39 PM

To	"Hudson, Scott" <Scott.Hudson@flatironssolutions.com>, <docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

Agreed.  It's readily apparent that the genertic term "XML Document" is too vague and is
easily construed to mean, "any XML structure (SOAP, RDF, DITA, DocBook, etc.).

Jim


================
Jim Earley
XML Developer/Consultant
Flatirons Solutions
4747 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80301

Voice: 303.542.2156
Fax:   303.544.0522
Cell:  303.898.7193

Yahoo.IM: jmearley
MSN.IM: jearley22@hotmail.com

jim.earley@flatironssolutions.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:36 AM
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

I spoke with Eduardo Gutentag at the OASIS Symposium, and he suggested a new name for
the proposed TC:
Documentation Standards Interoperability TC.

Perhaps this will help disambiguate the type of interoperability we are proposing?

Best regards,

-- Scott


 Scott Hudson
 XML Business Architect

 scott.hudson@FlatironsSolutions.com




 O:  303.542.2146

 C:  303.332.1883

 F:  303.544.0522



 www.FlatironsSolutions.com <http://www.flatironssolutions.com/>

 An Inc. 500 Company

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org