As an alternate method for using our spec, I would say fine. As long
as none of our work becomes invalid for use within LMNL, e.g., does
not require change to be used by LMNL and does not require change to
be accessed by valid programs once it is used by LMNL. IOW, if
LMNL-based HumanML programs or EXTENSIONS change the meanings or
otherwise raise exceptions within standard, otherwise valid, XML
Schema-based-HuamnML or HumanML-enhanced programs or applications,
then it becomes Non-
conformant, and of course, Non-compliant and will have to carry that
notification one way or another. Otherwise, especially if we support
it, it will cause our work major problems. No doubt, this is a
baseless concern, but I can guarantee that I won't be developing
anything that isn't as squeaky-clean and valid and widely-based
STANDARD, even if bass ackward dumb as a rock and hobbled by current
best practices.
Believe me when I say, I know chapter and verse how difficult and
conflict-ridden the task is to get a standard Web Services
Specification written that does NOT break current and on-going
standards, such as WSDL, SAML. XACML, Java JSR and .Net when testing
against current and the most reasonable candidates for next gen Web
stacks. As it happens, and, (boy, is this ever dumb or what?), I took
on the task of leading, or co-leading the WSRP-WSIA Markup subgroup
to track what we will be needing to do to ensure utility in the next
gen of extended Markup protocols, types and subtypes. I suggest you
contact Manos about this, because it will also require that it be
compatible, conformant and compliant with RDFS, too.
If this is just a separate layer, does not break anything, and it
makes work easier, hallelujah! If it requires retrofitting, well, I
imagine you can figure what I would think about that. I have followed
Gavin's comments on xml-dev over the years, and he does not raise any
warning flags in my experience, unlike some I won't name, but I am a
pretty serious worry wart these days.
Ciao,
Rex
P.S. I bookmarked the site for that grand day when I have time to
explore again. The only question is whether I will still be above
ground when that happens.
At 2:27 AM -0500 2/15/03, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:
>Hi Len, Gavin and HumanMarkup group:
>
>I attended my first XML-SIG/NY chapter meeting earlier this week. Gavin
>Nicol was a speaker, and introduced LMNL (re: http://www.lmnl.org). Of
>course, Gavin told me that he and you Len go way back, and I remember Len at
>one time you spoke highly of him in relation to your previous
>collaborations.
>
>Gavin introduced to us an alternate markup language specification called
>LMNL (lmnl.org). I found that it was that it was different from XML in that
>it allowed flexibility in marking up text without trying to force a
>'tree-hierarchy' structure. This was done by allowing overlapping ranges,
>and multiple layers, of markup (vs. the top-down, nested parent-child XML
>syntax).
>
>I don't know who of any of you remember the initial examples I had posted on
>HumanML based on spaghetti XML hacks when I first announced the effort--they
>are currently offline, but I'll get them back up as soon.
>
>To recap, I attempted to tease apart different human information (what were
>promises, threats, goals, emotionally laden words, etc) from a series of
>communiques of US politicians. I had of course envisioned using XML (i.e.
>HumanML) to be able to tease apart these different layers implicit within
>communication. After hearing Gavin's presentation, however, I realized that
>the difficulty I was having in getting myself to develop solid working
>examples came from the limitations of XML being so hierarchical.
>
>I really think that by allowing for multiple overlapping layers and ranges,
>we can seemlessly account for multiple interpretations and perspectives,
>embedded within the document. Gavin mentioned that he would be interested
>in perhaps helping develop an LMNL toolkit for HumanML, and he could present
>it to us in some form (Gavin: I'll let you take it from here ;))
>
>I will have my use-case description and slides ready later today for the
>CIDOC conference--trying to get these ready as quickly as I can (FYI: Sylvia
>and James), which will describe more precisely how this could work. Please
>stay tuned.
>
>-----
>Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 2/10/2003
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com *
