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

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

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 >