[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xmlvoc-comment] xmlvoc: Requirements (V0.1 Draft): DefiningCore,Why not XTM?
I think the word "core" can be used in many different ways to mean quite different things. I have made a similar attempt trying to identify a set of "core" XML standards for our purposes at Boeing, but later decided (based on some feedback) to just adopt W3C's terminology in the naming of their working groups. For example, there are at least two working groups with the word "core" in their names, i.e., XML Core (http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core) and RDF Core (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/). (Following this approach, we could probably define what XTM Core should be) As a result, we identified a list of W3C working groups which we believe are developing those (fundational) XML standards that we need to track with the intent to adopt as Boeing standards. My 2 cents, Scott -----Original Message----- From: H. Holger Rath [mailto:holger.rath@empolis.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 5:37 AM To: Patrick Durusau Cc: XMLvoc TC Subject: Re: [xmlvoc-comment] xmlvoc: Requirements (V0.1 Draft): Defining Core,Why not XTM? Hi, Patrick Durusau wrote: > > Holger, > > Great first step! > > I think I "know" what is meant by "core XML standards and technologies" > but would an initial listing better set the scope of our work? Good point. And a concrete list is of real value to limit our scope and to focus our work. Problem was that I did not had the time to do the investigations to list the ones I understand as core - and this might different from the 'core' list of other TC members. So let's work on your list and consolidate it to the TC list. > Suggested XML standard/technology listing (partial): > > CSS (?) I would say yes. > DOM > MathML Isn't it already a vertical domain (= maths) application? I would not consider it. > Non-W3C schema formalisms (RelaxNG, Schematron) > RDF Do we want to include Metadata standards? > SAX > SGML > SMIL No, Multi-media. > SOAP No, RPC program communication. > SVG No, graphics. > XForms I am undicided. > XHTML(?) Yes. > XLink > XML 1.0 > XML Base > XML Encryption What is this? > XML Fragment Interchange > XML Inclusions > XML Information Set > XML Key Management What is this? > XML Namespaces > XML Query > XML Schema (parts 0, 1, 2) > XML Signature > XPath > XPointer > XSL > XSLT > XTM (as part of ISO 13250) Only if we go for RDF. > Curious about (under 2. Requirements in brief, same comment applies to > #8 in the same section) > > 4. The core vocabulary shall be documented in XHTML and should be > documented in XTM. > > Not sure I understand why we would mandate the use of XHTML and try to > use XTM? > > Would prefer as follows: > > Proposed #4: The core vocabulary shall be documented in XTM and may > appear in other formats. > > Proposed #8: The recommendations should contain an example of such an > extension. The extension example should be provided in XTM format and > may be provided in other formats. > > My reasoning is that it will provide an incentive to use topic maps, > particularly since several members of this group could use such a > vocabulary to demonstrate their wares to a primarily XML aware audience. > Once people see it as relevant to areas in which they already have an > interest and provides superior navigation/finding over current tools, > they will have a reason to learn topic map technology. (Sort of a "proof > of the pudding is in the eating.") It was my intention to provide a easy to read (for humans) way to understand what's in the vocabulary and I have to admit - sorry guys - that prose text in XHTML is more readable than XTM code. I could be convinced to have both formats with a 'shall'. > More intangible reason is that it looks odd that we are promoting the > use of topic maps but do not require them for our own work product? "So, > if TMs are so great, why aren't you using one?" sort of question, which > I would find hard to answer. Particularly since we are building a > resource that is to be used by TMs. This will be the vocabulary, the set of human readable published subject indicators and their documentation. The vocabulary should be as easy to read and understand as possible (maybe I should add this to the reqs list). The example topic map (and maybe RDF graph) will show how to apply our vocabulary. And I fully agree that we have to use XTM here. But I am not convinced if XTM is the best readable format. --Holger > Well, time is almost up (12:00 GMT) and I need to leave for main office > meetings. :-( > > Looking forward to the call tomorrow and seeing everyone in Barcelona! > > Patrick > > -- > Patrick Durusau > Director of Research and Development > Society of Biblical Literature > pdurusau@emory.edu > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> -- Dr. H. Holger Rath - Director Research & Development - empolis * GmbH Bertelsmann MOHN Media Group Technologiepark Pav. 17 97222 Rimpar, Germany phone : +49-172-66-90-427 fax : +49-9365-8062-250 <mailto:holger.rath@empolis.com> http://www.empolis.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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