RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Should we recommend use of XTM?

[Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>]

Dear Thomas,

Welcome to the group and thank you for your posting.

At 11:35 25/02/02 +0100, Bandholtz, Thomas wrote:
> > * Issue: What are the arguments for using a machine processable syntax?
> > * Issue: Should we recommend use of XTM?
> > .....
>
>We should *recommend* - but not regulate - a machine processable syntax.
>We may use XTM in examples, but not explicitely recommend it.

I think I agree with your arguments and your conclusions, but there is a 
slight terminology problem here.

Up to now, we have used the terms "require" and "recommend". I think your 
"regulate" equates to "require". If so, I agree: We should not require 
people to use XTM. The approach taken by Dublin Core makes sense to me.

But what do we mean by "recommend"? How strong should our recommendation 
be? You say "we should *recommend*", but "not explicitly recommend". The 
distinction is not clear enough to me.

I think we should:

* recommend (but not require) use of a machine processable syntax
* use XTM as the prime (but perhaps not the only) example of such a syntax
* recommend a certain approach to be employed *if* XTM is chosen

I am not against also including examples in RDF if someone is willing to 
take the time to create them. I guess XML (with an appropriate DTD or 
schema) would be yet another candidate, but I think perhaps we don't want 
to go as far as to create that DTD ourselves. Are there other candidates 
for a "machine processable syntax"?

Steve

-- 
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246