[rights] "Let's establish a control on definitions and terms"

[Robin Cover <robin@isogen.com>]

Apropos of the TC conversation about terms, the following posting
came across my radar screen a few minutes ago with the
subject line:

"Let's establish a control on definitions and terms"

Possibly relevant to RLTC, though I think the strongest
arguments for creating some definitions are

1) external reviewers will have difficulty understanding
   the level of abstraction being targeted in Core and SX
   if the terms in these specs are not carefully defined
   (or elaborated in some explicating prose, which can
   be non-normative)

2) internal TC agreement will continue to be frustrated
   if there's a suspicion of equivocating on meanings of
   terms later on "that's not what WE meant by..."

In addition, the exercise of hammering out some agreeable
glosses/definitions may be useful as a means of exposing
misunderstandings and differences of perspective, which
can then be resolved because they are understood

Cheers,

Robin

Robin Cover
XML Cover Pages
WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:53:57 -0700
From: Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>
Reply-To: UN/CEFACT TMG Business Processes WG
    <uncefact-tmg-bpwg@listman.disa.org>
To: UN/CEFACT TMG Business Processes WG <uncefact-tmg-bpwg@listman.disa.org>
Cc: Dave Welsh <dmw@nwlink.com>, "Osinski, Ted" <TOsinski@uc-council.org>
Subject: Boyle 10/2/2002: Let's establish a control on definitions and terms

Thank you for your feedback, Todd.  

At OMG Interop 2001 in Orlando, 80 participants from dozens of
organizations agreed lack of common vocabulary is one of top-5
inhibitors of effective harmonization or coordination *between standards
bodies*.

mm1: I attended the Interoperability Summit in Orlando last year and in
June.  I agree this is an issue (Convergence is challenged by views of
ownership, even at the marketing level between standards bodies).

A problem is, when words used in the definitions are ambiguous.
Other standards bodies have made efforts to define basic, atomic
vocabularies such as the ODP Enterprise Vocabulary of ISO 10746.
This is a normative, reconciled vocabulary which encompasses a great
many real actors and processes as well as system artifacts,
ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ISO-stds/01-01-01.pdf
http://isotc.iso.ch/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_Home/Publicly
AvailableStandards.htm 

mm1: Perhaps, the UeB should consider the reference for the UeB glossary
to be sent in draft at the end of this week.

Monica J. Martin
Program Manager
Drake Certivo, Inc.
208.585.5946

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-uncefact-tmg-bpwg-21300I@listman.disa.org