RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name (UNCLASSIFIED)

["Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" <Leonard.Levine@disa.mil>]

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE

I am a relative newcomer to this conversation. 
>>  do you understand my point about document standards interoperability
being distinct from document interchange? 
No, I do NOT understand your point.  Wouldn't the number of scenarios
have to approach Infinity to be generally useful? Do we have a list of
scenarios or scenario hierarchies (ontologies?) that cover the document
universe?  Respectfully, Len Levine

LEONARD F. LEVINE
Standards Engineering Branch (GE331)
ATTN: Code GE331
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
PO Box 4502
Arlington, VA 22204-4502
703.681.2613

Mobile: 703.861.4822

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Peter F Brown
Cc: Dave Pawson; David RR Webber (XML);
docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; Earley,Jim
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name


I agree that "narrative" will have inappropriate connotations - for
example, content is often contrasted as being modular (like
topic-oriented books and Web sites) versus narrative (like books
designed for end-to-end reading). This TC would need to include both
types of content. 

Peter, do you understand my point about document standards
interoperability being distinct from document interchange? The point of
the TC is to get the standards-makers involved in defining
interoperability scenarios that cross document standards boundaries.
Users would also be welcome, inasmuch as they have those scenarios, but
generic document interchange as a requirement is too easily met with
"let's all just use the same standard", which would be the exact
opposite of the point of this TC. IE, you can't get people from multiple
different standards communities to agree to work together towards
eliminating all but one of them. What you can do is get them to work
together towards minimizing the pain of users who have to work across
multiple standards. Which is not all users, but does define the subset
of users and use cases that would be relevant here. 

In terms of the value of the TC, there are already members from the
DocBook, DITA, and ODF TCs who think it has value and are already
involved. It may or may not have value to you or to the communities you
represent, but it decidedly does have value to others. Please see the
scenarios discussed earlier in this list, showing the reuse of content
between different users in a company across ODF, DocBook, DITA, and
specialized DITA boundaries. 

In terms of a TC name, I continue to think the name needs to be accurate
but need not be wholely self-explanatory. Better to be too loose than
too restrictive, and then let the charter wording chart the border more
carefully. In other words, we don't need to define every single term we
use in the name itself. None of the other TCs do. Does the "Open
Document Format" TC define what it means by document? Does the "Darwin
Information Typing Architecture" define what it means by information
typing? Certainly not in the name. But hopefully yes in the charter. 

So, how about: 
XML Document-centric Standards Interoperability
- using the term "document-centric" because it appears in the OASIS TC
navigation, and covers at least the three starter TCs. 
- and then in the charter, make it perfectly clear that we are
interested in scenarios that involve reuse of primarily human-readable
content into/across different XML document standards, and in addressing
those scenarios by defining common requirements and interchange formats
and APIs. 

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



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

04/24/2007 01:50 PM To
"David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info> cc "Dave Pawson"
<dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
<docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Earley,Jim"
<Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>
Subject
RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

	




No-one in the public sector will buy that, I fear... 
  
That said, I'm still not convinced of the "value proposition" that this
TC would offer: If it is to have legs, I think the "document exchange"
idea has to play a larger part. 
  
I don't want to be too negative, but I just don't see enough yet to
convince me it will fly 
  
Peter 
  
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
Sent: 24 April 2007 13:08
To: Peter F Brown
Cc: Dave Pawson; docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org;
Earley,Jim
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name 
  
Peter, 
  
So back on the naming horse: 
  
 Narrative XML Exchange TC 
  
? 
  
DW

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

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

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 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE