[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Recommendations or requirements?
Steve Pepper wrote: > I have read the minutes of Jan 29 meeting and am happy with most of > them. Thanks to Suellen for providing such a succint and useful summary. Seconded. > I have one comment, regarding the statement "The consensus is that the > TC recommendations will not recommend any particular syntax, but a > general abstract model. Although, for some specific formats, it will > provide a recommended syntax." > > I believe we *should* recommend the use of a machine processable syntax, > but we should not require it. We should suggest either XTM or RDF (are > there other candidates?) as being most appropriate. Actually what Suellen has there corresponds with the notes I made, but I think we may not have been explicit. I agree with Steve, but I'm not clear why it is wrong to require a specific format (specifically, XTM). Is this simply to be nice to people who use RDF? Or SGML Topic Maps? I also have a note that those who were going to be at the Seattle mtg were going to hold a discussion with the ebXML people but I didn't write down *what* was to be discussed (but maybe this was an informal suggestion and not for the minutes). Microscopic nit: literature has only two ts. ///Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC