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

["Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com>]

Hello,

I would just like to offer my "two cents of Euros" here. I like
Eduardo's idea, I just had something else in mind though. How about :
"Interdocumentary Standard TC"?
The term is odd, but perhaps it will strike enough minds in the future
to get  this TC's work famous.

Regards,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz,
Associé / Associate
Ars Aperta.



David RR Webber (XML) a écrit :
> 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
>     < BR>"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 Inter operability 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 <#Compose>
>     For additional commands, e-mail:
>     docstandards-interop-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org <#Compose>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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