Lars,
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>* Patrick Durusau
>|
>| 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?
>
>It would probably be more useful to say "all specifications defined by
>the W3C, and ISO's SC34". We could then add others explicitly, if
>needed.
>
>However, I am not sure why we would do this. If we're not going to do
>cover instances, why must we specify this?
>
Can you clarify what you mean by "instances?"
BTW, I like the tools ontology but isn't "standard" a little broad to be
useful in a topic map of "core XML standards?" Unless the intent is to
build an ontology that can then be used by others to apply build topic
maps for XML 1.0 or DOM 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 (drafts)?
Assuming for the moment that "instances" = "ontologies found in XML
standards," where does one start to derive an ontology for the Cover
pages? Could start with the current categories (a fairly large number)
but that seems (to me) to lose the opportunity to provide a more
detailed ontology for navigation of XML standards and resources.
>
>If we are going to cover instances, why would we do such a thing?
>What's the point of creating a PSI set that will be out of date before
>it is even published and that we *know* we can't keep up to date?
>
>
Do PSIs go out of date? At least for reference to ISO and W3C
specifications? Shouldn't a PSI for ISO 8879 (as amended on July 1,
1988) be a valid identifier whether other PSIs are added to a PSI set or
not?
>
>| 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.
>
>Agreed.
>
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
