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

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
From: "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com>
Date: Tue, April 24, 2007 4:56 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>,
docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>, "Hudson,Scott"
<Scott.Hudson@flatironssolutions.com>, "Earley,Jim"
<Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.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.)
>
>

docstandards-interop-discuss message