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: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)[thanks]


I really do enjoy your opinions, Len... just wanting a clarification... thanks...
I suppose pointing out that the ISO _could_ leverage the mystical "IP" rights but _chooses_ not to... is not a bad thing either.
Just because they have allowed the W3C to proceed as it does today, doesn't mean that at some later point, they might not, at least not without a fight...
It is always good to look to the _maybe_ battles of tomorrow and prepare for them, and in turn debate several things on the 'abstract' that never become concrete threats than the alternative... which is to be attacked suddenly and without warning or expectation...

-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 2:05 PM
To: Williams, David; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)

First, balance of powers.  It isn't us vs them, black or white,
good or evil, etc.   It is balance:  ensuring that no
group or consortia be empowered to act such that
the interests of human culture are in peril because they
can act hastily or without sound reason.  It sounds
dramatic, I know, but it is really the tedious details
of how law and technology interact by consent.
Second, we can't toss words like "standards" into these
discussions unless they have meaning.  What
do we say to those who think SAX should be a
W3C-owned and maintained product?  What would
that help?  Do those who originally developed it
but are not W3C members have rights?  If so, what
are they?  Lots of open-list works gets carried off
into members-only groups.  Well-meaning people
enlist the support of organizations whose policies
and worse, controls, they don't understand.  In
some cases, controls they cannot or will not see.
Don't take my position in a largely theoretical argument
as a like or dislike.  This isn't personal and those 
who want to make it personal are simply thanked 
for their input.    I think it important to explore these
relationships down that twisty road because otherwise
we find ourselves accepting the opinions of the press,
the pundits, and others (me included, so I accept the
risks to debate this from an unpopular position).  
Because XML is being used to code and preserve very
large chunks of the world's
information assets, care is warranted in how it is
designed, created and changed.   The Blueberry affair
pushes certain issues to the surface.  When for
example, should an organization be allowed to limit
the character sets if such limitations would make
cultural assets (eg, the famous Buddhist texts)
disappear?   Do the consortia have responsibilities
for such things?  If not, should SGML, an international
standard, be maintained assiduously to ensure in
such cases, the owners of that information have
another way to maintain it and still make it available? 
I have lobbied for the update and improvement of
SGML.  I've done it for years.   I consider it the
jewel for which XML is a setting.  It does deserve
a bit or polishing now and then.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, David [mailto:DAVID.WILLIAMS@ca.com]

Hey Len..
Don't take this the wrong way, please...
What exactly, then, are you doing developing XML standards?
What is it about XML that holds your interests and keeps you from lobbying the ISO daily to "fix" and update SGML?
<statement of opinion>
A casual reader might think that you don't like OR enjoy using and/or developing XML....
</statement of opinion>