[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

Bernard Vatant sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:39:39 +0200

> * Graham Moore
> |
> | I would like us to try and get some consensus on this idea and put
> | something into the spec to reflect this.
> * Bernard Vatant
> |
> | I would applaud to that -
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> So the idea proposed is that we add a note that scope is underpowered
> in the specification we are producing now, but otherwise leave it
> as-is? Presumably this is being done so that we can later come back
> with something more powerful?

That seems reasonable (see other message)

> * Bernard Vatant
> | the only thing I can do, until France come back to sc34 ...  still a
> | long way to go :((
> Bernard, that's not true. Any OASIS or ISUG member can attend SC34
> meetings, since both organizations have full liaison status with SC34.
> In fact, this is how Steve Newcomb attends meetings. The fact that
> this doesn't give you a vote is immaterial, since nearly all decisions
> are in any case taken by developing consensus through debate.
> In other words, nothing is formally holding you back...

I know all that. My point is that it's always frustrating to engage in a process where you
have no formal power :o)
My remark was also about the process that is starting now with AFNOR in France, which will
be desperately slow I'm afraid.

> | It figures we would keep scope there just for backward
> | compatibility, but provide and recommend more effective and semantic
> | ways to deal with what scope wants to express, through association
> | reification process. If we provide something robust and effective, I
> | suppose old-fashioned non-specified scope would die out slowly by
> | itself, the same way I don't think many people use association
> | members with no role specification, although they are allowed to do
> | so by the standard.
> I am not necessarily opposed to this, but I think we should be careful
> to take things one step at a time. It seems to me that it should be
> possible to come up with a more powerful scope construct later that
> can support all the things we are currently doing with scope. If that
> is the case I think we should move forward now with what we have, and
> those who are interested can develop scope++ proposals in paralell.



Bernard Vatant
Consultant - Mondeca
Chair - OASIS TM PubSubj Technical Committee