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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xmlvoc-comment message

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

Subject: Re: [xmlvoc-comment] OASIS Vocabulary for XML Standards andTechnologies TC - Requirements (V0.1 Draft)

Initial comments on the requirements document:

 - 2.1 should perhaps have a sub-list to make it more readable?

 - 2.2 "limted" -> "limited"

 - 2.2 could perhaps be clarified somewhat:
   - core standards
   - standards built on core standards
   - tools
   - standards organizations
   - tool implementors

 - I would like to see a statement along the lines of "the vocabulary
   will only define classes and scopes, no instances". If we find we
   do want to define instance subjects that should be a separate
   deliverable, and its scope should be clearly defined. I'd be much
   happier for all instances to live in examples, though.

 - 2.4 I'd be happier to see shall for both XTHML and XTM

 - 2.8 I'd prefer to see XHTML and XTM switched. We are, after all,
   making recommendations for topic map ontologies. If we want to aim
   broader we could replace XHTML by RDF.

 - 4.1 I disagree with this one. We should definitely do this, as it
   is a very important area of XML. If we don't do this we will make
   our work a lot less useful. Note also that many W3C specs are of
   the same order as these, so the complexity ontology is not much
   affected. (And we're not doing instances, right?)

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC