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

["Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu>]

In a European context, "documentation" would nearly always equate to "technical documentation" and be understood as things like DocBook and not, say, legislative texts, business documents, etc.

But:
- when does a legislative document get covered by LegalXML?
- when does a business document get covered by UBL?
We can easily get lost: it should be more specific than any "XML document" but less specific than particular "XML application" documents.

I understood the scope to be about interoperability between "generic" documents generated by "all-purpose" word-processing software, be that in ODF, DocBook, etc - but that begs the more fundamental question: why isn't the biggest document production platform included, that generates OOXML? The scope of the proposed TC needs to be serious in addressing this dimension, or it will be a fool's errand.

Has anyone compared the scope with the new activity in the European Commission on "Open Document Exchange Formats" (!= ODF)? Could this be a collaborative effort? Is their title more useful?

I think the proposed TC needs to be MUCH clearer about its scope before it'll get our vote.

Peter


-------------
Peter F Brown
Founder, Pensive.eu
Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
Lecturer at XML Summer School
---
Personal:
+43 676 610 0250
http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
www.XMLbyStealth.net
www.xmlsummerschool.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com] 
Sent: 23 April 2007 14:32
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

On 23/04/07, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
>
> 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

I like the terseness and yes, the generality.
All it means is we need clarification early on in the web pages /
actual standard
to scope the work, which is no bad thing IMHO.


> I'm not sure I'd go into machine v human readable - since that distinction is rapidly being eroded by smart machine agents.

Yes, I find that (potentially) too constraining. Most will stay one
side of their own
boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the other side is out of scope?

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 21/04/2007 11:56
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774 - Release Date: 23/04/2007 17:26