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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: Requirements for namespaces, etc

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: David Wang <dwang@mitre.org>
  • To: James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>
  • Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:07:00 -0400

My opinions.  Perhaps other, more established members canre to comment, too.

I think this is just the difference between a .com and .org -- since business
ultimately *should* respond to some practical need, they eventually compromise
on technical merit.  .com only care for something that works for their
business, and if some specification forwards that goal, so much the better. 
But that's not what drives .org.  Asking .org to become more .com like can be
argued only because .com do not want to become more .org-like because it won't
be a good business.

But, I just don't think having business interests (hidden in these practical
requirements) driving the specifications and technical design is the right
thing (then the .org becomes a pseudo-extension of the .com's R&D arm, which
is not what anyone wants).

> How about the W3C initiate a process
> of requirements gathering/"use cases"
> (whatever you want to call it) that identifies
> the key practical goals and functionality
> of the system.

This is the typical business view of things (everything beneath).  Find the
real world problem, then create a technical solution for that problem.  But, I
argue that this process is probably *not* the intention of the various XML
specifications nor of the W3C.  The specifications attack general classes and
sorts of problems, and the ideas can be leveraged over and over again.  So, of
course you find the specifications non-useful -- they don't tackle a specific
problem and you can't immediately leverage it to be a solution.  That doesn't
mean the specication process is flawed; it just means someone needs to
implement a solution and you happened to be first.

Besides, if in the process of implementation you think "Gee, this is a nice,
general idea..." it'd be perfect to shoot that back to the W3C and have it
studied/developed/implemented into an idea for a specification of the general

But ultimately, the .org has to balance the .com, and asking the .org to
support the .com is probably not the best long range idea.

I'm interested in good, long range solutions.  Not cobbling together of
short-term patches.  .org prescribes to the former view; .com prescribe to the

My two cents.


This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS