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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] WS-Emperor naked?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

The common logical fallacy is fallacious unless it happens to be 
true. However, I won't dispute it being a fallacy almost all of the 
time, since that is why I said it makes me uncomfortable. I certainly 
don't recommend it as a way to make decisions, but unfortunately, I 
think this time it was warranted. And my personal opinion was, and 
remains, that it  does not pose a greater problem in and of itself, 
except perhaps for the unlikely circumstance that the various 
stakeholders think that this is sufficient as is,because it isn't. It 
is, I obviously believe, a worthy advance. For those who disagree, 
the door to paricipate in improving it is open with the caveat of 
OASIS membership, of course.


At 3:37 PM -0400 4/4/04, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 6:48 AM -0700 4/4/04, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>Lastly, who wants to cast the vote the prevents allowing the only 
>>viable, public standard completely uncoupled from partisan 
>>politics, that stands a chance of saving a single life in a time 
>>when another incident such as 9/11 or 3/11 could happen at any 
>>time, especially if that public standard, because it IS public, CAN 
>>be amended to do its job better?
>Without knowing anything about CAP, I do recognize here a very 
>common logical fallacy that leads to bad policy and bad government. 
>The assumption that we must do something because, hey it might work, 
>ignores the very real costs of doing something, including, 
>sometimes, the possibility that it may be actively harmful and 
>perhaps even counterproductive. Solutions based on newer technology 
>are not always better. If CAP is bad enough, it indeed might be 
>better not to have it at all. It is ridiculous to claim that we 
>should support because it might stand a chance of saving a single 
>life, unless we can also say with reasonable confidence that it will 
>not costs lives (or freedom, or privacy, or wealth, or any other 
>concepts we hold dear).
>The only reasonable way to judge a standard like this is to tally up 
>the advantages *AND DISADVANTAGES* and see if the advantages 
>outweigh the disadvantages. Sometimes it's a judgement call which 
>different, rational people may come to different conclusions about. 
>For instance, the law enforcement community places almost no weight 
>on privacy and civil liberties. Many citizens place much greater 
>weight on those values. Nonetheless you have to make the comparisons 
>to speak sensibly about such matters.
>I am reminded of the XML 1.1 debates, in which I was repeatedly 
>accused of  being morally suspect merely because I dared to raise 
>the question of what the disadvantages of moving to a new version of 
>XML were, and whether the advantages were of sufficient weight to 
>counterbalance them.
>As I said, I really don't know if the advantages of CAP outweigh its 
>disadvantages or not; but if I felt they did I would have no 
>compunction about casting a vote to reject it, even in the absence 
>of other alternatives. Sometimes when faced with a bad spec, that's 
>the only sensible and logical choice. Sadly the inertia of standards 
>efforts (not just at OASIS but at the JCP, the W3C, and elsewhere) 
>means standards tend to get approved even when they shouldn't be I 
>suspect a procedural change might be in order. To be approved a spec 
>must pass two separate and independent votes: one by those who 
>worked on the spec, and one by interested parties who did not 
>participate in the development of the spec, and made no investment 
>to be wasted if the specification fails to pass the vote. Sadly, I 
>know of no standards body that operates in such a bicameral fashion.
>   Elliotte Rusty Harold
>   elharo@metalab.unc.edu
>   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
>   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS