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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: FOs again

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: greynolds@greynolds.com
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:01:31 -0500

Integrity meant that page boundaries were 
preserved.  Fidelity meant that the look was 
preserved, originally, inside a 1000dpi system. 
So, guarantees of integrity were reasonable but 
fidelity was hard to guarantee.  You are right 
about the change bars.  If they wanted to use 
these, then the requirements for fidelity go 
up.   All in all, it was a dog eared way to 
do what a document database could do a lot 
better if the print version weren't the record 
of authority.  But to do that, fidelity of the 
interchange was required and then behavioral 
fidelity became the issue.

Again, not easy once you get past a scrolling 
monolith. HTML cut the Gordian knot, meaning, get 
on with business without actually solving the 
problems of name, location, and identity and 
their involvement in the legal constitution of 
a Record of Authority (ROAs justified PDF).  

1.  Is this the formal name by which any instance 
of this can be cited?

2.  Is this the absolute location of a provably 
correct instance or copy of the thing named?

3.  Is the thing named the record of authority 
and can I prove the named thing at this location 
is the record of authority?

So, given that, do FOs help?  They should actually 
if they restore page fidelity and 
separate it from the issues of page integrity.  Fidelity 
guarantees it IS the ROA; integrity guarantees it is 
the location of the ROA.  The name is ONLY a citable 
unique string for starting the process of determining 
the behavioral fidelity of the process of guaranteeing 
the first two.

Yes?  No?

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Reynolds [mailto:greynolds@greynolds.com]

Don't you want "Fidelity", instead of integrity?

> drafts could barely get cited at all.   The 28001
> customer wanted page fidelity (necessary for legal
> documents),

Probably more important for document maintenance using loose-leaf change
packets.  "This page replaces page 1358" is real hard to do if you can't
reliably track pagebreaks (or even line breaks, for placing change bars)
when recomposing.

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