Title: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Should we recommend use of XTM?
> I guess XML (with an appropriate DTD or
> schema) would be yet another candidate, but I think perhaps
> we don't want
> to go as far as to create that DTD ourselves. Are there other
> candidates
> for a "machine processable syntax"?
Somebody may have chosen to write:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<psi:tm-psi-set xmlns:psi="http://www.--?--.org/psi/1.0" xmlns:dc=="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
psi:identifier=" http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm" xml:lang="en" psi:version="ontopia.xtm,v 1.3 2002/02/21 15:06:34 pepper Exp" psi:status="draft" psi:published="2002-02-01">
<dc:description> This PSI set defines published subjects for Ontopia AS, covering certain products and employees. </dc:description>
<dc:publisher xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm#ontopia"/>
<dc:creator xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm#pepper"/>
<psi:docs>
<psi:doc xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/"/>
<psi:doc xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm"/>
<psi:doc xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia-psis.txt"/>
</psi:docs>
</psi:tm-psi-set>
Thomas Bandholtz
XML Competence Center
SchlumbergerSema
Sema GmbH
Kaltenbornweg 3
D50679 K闤n/Cologne
++49 (0)221 8299 264
