Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Sean McGrath <email@example.com>, "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:22:23 -0400
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Why? Precisely why?
> Before we add one more stack of paper to the
> already too dense stack of markup technical
> specifications, we really need a defense for
> "This is too hard" is just too dumb to
> hear one more time in this saga.
From this last quote (who are you quoting here? not me.) I take it to mean
that you are implying that others have argued against groves and property
sets because "This is too hard"?
The bottom line issue is not whether groves are too hard, but that, for
example, Simon sees a discussion of "grove plans and property sets" a "red
herring" in the context of a full fidelity XML information model and a
mechanism to subset such into, e.g. Common XML.
Whose fault is this? are groves really a red herring? In which case we
really really need a way to specify a full fidelity XML model and subsets.
Are 99.99% of people just unable to understand? (is this what you are
implying by the above?) If this is the case I fault the description, not the
The Open Healthcare Group