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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> Give XML Schema a year.  If the market
> adopts it, there is no cause to complain.
> If the market doesn't, there is no need.
I do not completely follow you here.

I think that diversity is always good and something worth fighting for.

This is true in the "real world" for bio-diversity.

I think it's also true in the cyber world for software design and W3C
XML Schema can reduce the diversity of the XML vocabularies if it is
widely accepted by not allowing to describe a wide set of combinations.

If the market adopts W3C XML Schema without enough openings to more
flexible schema languages, the market will have killed these
combinations like it has killed thousands of animal and vegetal species
and human cultures in the past century.

I do think it would be a cause to complain!

Another question to ask is "can we keep a common set of tools for
e-business and e-publication?".

This has been possible when we were working on the lower pieces of the

Is-it possible for the higher and more specialized bricks?

W3C XML Schema seems to be OK for data oriented vocabularies that are
used by e-commerce application, I don't think it's a good fit for
document oriented applications.

We are seeing the same risk of fork in the area of the semantic web
where RDF seems to be a good fit for publication (Dublin Core, NewsML,
RSS, ...) and has been rejected by all the e-commerce applications
(ebXML, UDDI, WSDL, ...).

Are these symptoms meaning that there will be a fork between a
publication web and a business web (as already discussed on this list) ?

See you in Hong Kong for www10:
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org