OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Kal is subscribed! (was RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die)

My mistake, I had thought that because this was a public list I didn't need 
to subscribe but could just post. My apologies to those who had to read (or 
delete) this diversion from the thread.


At 08:53 25/03/2002 -0500, Karl F. Best wrote:
> > Kal cannot post to this list. He has interesting contributions.
> > Isn't tm-pubsubj-comment public?
>He should subscribe first. Then he can post.
>Karl F. Best
>OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
>+1 978.667.5115 x206
>karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bandholtz, Thomas [mailto:thomas.bandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:35 AM
>To: 'tm-pubsubj-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'
>Cc: 'bernard.vatant@mondeca.com'
>Subject: FW: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die
>Kal cannot post to this list. He has interesting contributions. Isn't
>tm-pubsubj-comment public?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kal Ahmed [mailto:kal@techquila.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:10 PM
>To: Bandholtz, Thomas
>Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die
>My last email was bounced by the list as well... :-(
>At 13:54 21/03/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>No one has yet said that the documentation would be XML ! But even so
>which is more human readable:
><book-title>XML Meta Data</book-title>
>   <author>Kal Ahmed</author>
>   <author>Danny Ayers</author>
>    ...
><description> -- blurb about the book goes here </description>
>I would suggest that XML of the first form is "machine-readable" and XML
>of the second form is "human-readable". But depending upon the system(s)
>involved, the first form might be the only form that can be
>automatically generated for the subject indicator.
>We have been talking about XTM, RDF, XHTML, customized XML so far - all
>this is XML. But you may be right - needs not to be XML. But I think it
>should not be binary encoded.
>If this became a limitation for a PSI, it would restrict PSIs to being a
>much smaller subset of all subject indicators. The ISO and XTM
>specifications do not specify a format for a subject indicator. I guess
>it would be a shame if that flexibility had to be sacrificed for PSIs.
>Readability only depends on the specific intelligence implemented in the
>If I (human, hopefully) understand the encoding of <auth-code> etc., I
>can read it.
>If a machine doesn't, it cannot read it neither.
>This is true within the definition of "readable". But should a PSI
>resource be "readable" or "understandable". If it is the latter, should
>that "understandability" be dependent on other knowledge external to the
>resource itself ? In limited circumstances (e.g. intranet or extranet
>environments) it could be argued that all users of the PSI would know
>what auth-code indictaed (esp. if using a documented schema). But in
>generalised internet solutions, surely a subject indicator that relies
>on knowledge of yet another schema would be flawed ?
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC