[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData

Murray Altheim sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:57:44 +0000

Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Eric,
> Freese, Eric D. (LNG-DAY) wrote:
> <snip>
>>I am speaking from the front lines of the user community, not the tool
>>vendor community, not the acedemic community.  I'm claiming my stake as part
>>of the target market - the people who want to make money using the tools and
>>standard as opposed to those implementing or studying.  
> Ouch! Or as Charley Brown would say, "He nicked me with a nyah!" ;-)
> The academic community has suffered at the hands of standards bodies 
> that prefer texts that are dumbed down until they meet capricious limits 
> on parsing/processing. Well, the users in the academic community at any 
> rate.
> I think Eric's point is well taken and the various parts of the topic 
> map standard need to take it into account. Standards that insure 
> information is interchangeable but that do not meet the needs of users 
> are interesting, but irrelevant.
> As Eric and others have suggested, we are not faced with choosing either 
> interchange or usefulness. Both are possible in the topic maps standard, 
> but only if we show some imagination and ingenuity in devising a 
> solution that meets both requirements. To choose one without the other 
> is a recipe for failure.

Well, the sixth time is a charm:  would the XHTML+XTM DTD meet the
80/20 point? That's the question. Can we avoid arbitrary markup by
providing a specific hybrid that solves the problem for 80% of the
users who need extended abilities? As I've said, I'm even willing
to do that work if it means avoiding arbitrary markup in a standard,
which I will continue to maintain is a nonsequitor.


Murray Altheim                         http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK                    .

   Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental
   costs of war on Iraq, the report estimates that between 22,000 and
   55,000 people - mainly Iraqi soldiers and civilians - died as a direct
   result of the war.

   Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage? ...a euphemism for BushCo.