RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)[thanks]

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

Title:

It's good to acknowledge the ISO cooperated with the XML effort.  How satisfied ISO

is with the results is anyone's guess.   At some point in the future, they will have

alternatives as long the options are preserved.  In this case, I would say they

need to make sure the next five year revision of ISO 8879 addresses concerns

raised during the XML initiative as XML does represent the largest development and

fielding of SGML systems, therefore, a source of enormously valuable feedback.

That said, the editor of the SGML standard is quoted as saying that SGML and

XML have different applications.  This part I don't quite get, but  I don't think it

invalidates concepts such as redesigning the SGML Declaration to be clearer

to implement, more applicable to current and emerging systems, and shed the

obsolete bits (capacities).

 

I think it clear that it is in no one's best interest to fight nor is there any

looming battle.   Understanding standards, specs, processes, and their

relationship to legal authority, rights, and obligations is part of the maturing

of the web in general.   I think an important part of that can happen in the

markup communities given the prominence of this technology in the majority

of technical development efforts.  This isn't new.  Such thoughts have been,

in my experience, prominent in the thoughts of many of the markup developers

for at least two decades.   It keeps us honest. :-)

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, David [mailto:DAVID.WILLIAMS@ca.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:14 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: 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...

 

~Dave

-----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.

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

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

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

Hey Len..

 

 

<question>

Don't take this the wrong way, please...

What exactly, then, are you doing developing XML standards?

</question>

 

<re-phrase>

What is it about XML that holds your interests and keeps you from lobbying the ISO daily to "fix" and update SGML?

</re-phrase>

 

<statement of opinion>

A casual reader might think that you don't like OR enjoy using and/or developing XML....

</statement of opinion>