RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

The UDDI guys can call it anything they like too 
and when you wretch, you are in a self-inflicted 
state.  If the UDDI says it is a standard, then a standard 
it is.

We choose a means to choose a means: 
you chose the W3C polity.  The UDDI community 
can make that choice too.  The words  
outside the context of who uses them
become meaningless unless we have 
a broader agreement for use.  The meaning 
is in the expected behavior, what you 
call "practical intents and purposes".

Since the W3C chooses the terms, recomendation 
or specification, I use their terms for their 
artifacts.  They probably have something
in mind for that interpretation which 
might make a fine contribution to a semantic web 
in a list of "practical intents and purposes" 
they test to ensure their definition of use.

And so relentlessly on to abstraction.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]

I quite deliberately pollute that word. I consider the W3C's use of 
"Recommmendation" instead of "Standard" to be disingenuous. The W3C 
publishes standards for all practical intents and purposes. The 
technical details of why they're not called standards (which change 
depending on who you're talking to) should all be resolved  by 
changing the process to make them legal standards; not by being 
satisfied with de facto standards and de jure "recommendations".