Agreed.
I think examples such as ones that Cory, Shawn and Paul have talked about producing would be very valuable for helping focus this discussion.
sean
From: Mark Davidson
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:17 PM
To: "Jordan, Bret", Cory Casanave
Cc: "Barnum, Sean D.", Jason Keirstead, Terry MacDonald, "", "",
John Wunder
Subject: RE: [cti-users] [cti-stix] [cti-users] MTI Binding
I’d like to offer a challenge: How do we move on from this conversation?
(Note: Sean’s/John’s emails came out while I was writing this – I think we’re on the same page)
I think we’ve heard everyone’s viewpoint at least once, and we’re starting to hear certain viewpoints multiple times. I don’t think we’re going to
come to a consensus in this thread – can we find some common ground and then apply this energy to other problems?
In this thread, I’ve heard people advocating for both JSON and JSON-LD. I have not heard anyone advocating for another MTI binding. I also have not
heard a challenge to the idea that we should have one MTI format. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d say that more people are for JSON than for JSON-LD, though we do not yet have a consensus. I hope I have said nothing controversial in this paragraph.
Here is my proposal for moving forward: JSON and JSON-LD are the current contenders for the MTI Binding, and prototypes/examples are preferred (but
not required) to be in one of these formats. Once we get some real discussion under our belt in terms of mockups and use-cases, we will be able to revisit this discussion with more information.
What is the next most important topic we should be discussing?
Thank you.
-Mark
