Re: [xml-dev] "XML for the Long Haul" program available

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

CORRECTION:
"making explicit the semantics which are only implicit in the XML"

To be precise it would be to make explicit the semantics either implicit
in the XML and/or explicit and implicit in any associated spec (taking
account of the version, customisations, etc).

Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




On 16 June 2010 09:14, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Going back to previous thread
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201005/threads.html#00006
> maybe it would be best to first convert the XML to its OWL-DL
> equivalent (making explicit the
> semantics which are only implicit in the XML). Then the OWL-DL could
> be turned into prose
> statements/descriptions using 'description logic' before printing it
> out. It would be very verbose
> so only information that needed preserving would warrant this. Maybe
> it is best to use microform
> rather than paper - to save space, etc (microform can be read with
> minimal technology of course).
> I'm not sure how 'green' microform (microfilm and microfiche) is
> though so paper might actually
> be 'better'.
>
> Best regards
>
> Steve
> ---
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
>
> On 15 June 2010 22:21, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>>
>>>> People who create, store, query, or serve XML expect it to live a
>>>> very long time. XML is platform- and application-independent, and by
>>>> and large it is platforms and applications that vanish. If by
>>>> encoding information in XML we have freed it from dependency on
>>>> specific platforms or applications, have we succeeded in ensuring
>>>> that the XML can live long into the future? Or is there more to it
>>>> than using XML? How can we best ensure that our data, all our data,
>>>> and its semantics survive this year, next year, ten years? into the
>>>> next millennium?
>>>
>>> This is a fascinating topic.
>>
>> A couple of things regarding your points below:
>>
>>>
>>> Setting aside the issue of whether or not someone 200 years from now will be able to understand the semantics of the XML text that we create today,
>>
>> The U.S. Constitution was written not too much over 200 years ago, and we still seem to spend an awful lot of time debating its semantics, despite the fact it was written in English.  Would we have done better, worse, or about the same if we'd written it using XML?  (Or would the delegates to the Constitutional Convention still be arguing about the XML Schema to use in writing it?)
>>
>>> isn't there a more fundamental issue: will there be any tools that understand the encoding used by today's computers? Will UTF-8 still exist 200 years from now? Will there be tools that can interpret UTF-8 200 years from now?
>>
>> As a backup, why don't we just print it out (acid-free paper of course!)?  Or maybe just the important stuff (NSA may be interested in every XML message ever sent over the net, but I doubt anyone else will be).  XML's supposed to be text, after all.
>>
>> --Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
>> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
>> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>>
>> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
>> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
>> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
>> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>>
>>
>