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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] A question of necessity

On 04/22/2016 04:13 AM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
<nut:upper name="object">
    <smic:middle name="passive">
          ... properties ...
    <smic:middle name="active" /> <!-- parsed as original -->

I "speak" the NUT and SMIC ontologies fluently, so when I create the
core ontology (core namespace), I wrap them up like this. Then I can
try out various versions to find out how it affects the various
properties of the resulting ontology. For each domain there's a
generic stylesheet for parsing, and one for version rules.
I love a purely academic discussion, and it is often said that the only causes worth fighting for are the lost ones. My *technical* question for you, Alexander, is: "Absent the annoying and unhelpful cruft that has accumulated on all markup tools and in many petabytes of marked-up data over the years since a conspiracy in restraint of trade overwhelmed an existing international standard designed to serve the public interest...

...Why couldn't all of your *technical* requirements have been *better* satisfied with something like 'architectural form attributes' as described in HyTime?"

Having been impaled on this "RDF needs colonified names" windmill many years ago, I find myself largely in agreement with Arjun, but I also find the discussion of "How do we get out of this mess" a bit, uh, quixotic. The technical mess that Michael Kay summarized so compactly is rooted in the de-facto supremacy of private interests over public ones. It is rooted specifically in a private consortium's temporary hegemony over data representation standards, in this particular case demonstrably to the detriment of the public interest. As a matter of fact, there is still a better solution on the ISO books (10744:1997), and as of this moment it is still being ignored. As a matter of history, the HyTime solution came first, it was loudly deprecated and misrepresented by W3C leaders, and it was effectively scuttled in the marketplace. Were they right to take that approach? Who cares? They won, didn't they?

Maybe now it's becoming OK to discuss this. Maybe now W3C will even explain its summary judgment of architectural forms as "too ugly". Or, maybe not.

Steve Newcomb

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS