[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
Aad Kamsteeg
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:10:11 +0100
I like to chip in on this discussion.
My personal view on this is in line with both sentiments expressed in
this discussion. I think on one hand that "proprietary content" in an
application standard like TM is awkward and could be ugly as well. On
the other hand I know that a way to set a standard to ones own hand, is
something that probably would make a part of the user community quite
happy. Besides this I think that standards should be open as possible,
in any case because a "committee" of any kind cannot foresee all
possible usage scenario's.
So I came up with the following proposal in order to see if this could
be a way to solve this.
Just allow for a proprietary extension to the schema, but only in a
formalized way. In terms of RelaxNG: add an empty define (notAllowed)
for the three XTM elements so users (rather maintainers) of a Topic Map
can define their own additional markup by extending the schema in those
parts only.
When a Topic Maps owner decides to do so, the consequences are entirely
his. The standard should give some rules in order to at least state a
proper warning to (ignorant) adopters of that specific TM.
It must me made clear for any other party who is allowed (or granted) to
use the TM in question. As a provision for that purpose an idea could be
to add an optional atribute for the root-element that states that this
TM has a proprietary extension (so all are warned).
The standard should state clearly (normative) that when an extension is
used this attribute is mandatory.
Some guiding rules could be added in addition to this:
- The owner of an extended TM is required to publish the extension in
cases where this TM is made public or is to be shared with others.
- The owner of an extended TM is required to publish an instruction what
the preferred way of resolving this additional mark-up is in a situation
where the extension can not be applied, default rules could be either:
-- remove the proprietary markup and its content (for things like SVG
and Math-ML the most likely solution)
-- remove the proprietay markup and keep the textual bits, (most likely
for added mark-up like <b> or <em>).
- Further more the standard could urge the owner of an extended TM to
supply a sufficient ruleset (could be in the form of a XSLT stylesheet
(??) how to handle the proprietory mark-up if others want to keep (and
use) the added value that is archieved with this extension.
This way the responsibillity for extended TM's is entirely for the party
that created the TM, not for the standards organisation. The standard
does provide sufficient rules to handle these exceptional (?) cases as
decent as possible.
:-) Aad
PS. I agree with using RelaxNG as the normative schema language. I have
quite some experience in using Relax because, as consultants / designers
of schema we use Relax in all situations. We have some additional rules
in order to enable reliable conversion towards a DTD. If interested I
don't mind sharing this (and the XSLT stylesheets that do the job) with you.
Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:
> XHTML+MathML might get a lot of the presentation functionality I need, but
>certainly only that functionality, not the actual tags I want to use: XHTML
>certainly isn't any of the tag sets we use for classification guides, which
>identify all sorts of things never thought of in HTML (or the old IBM DCF
>Starter Set, on which it is based). And we carry lots of attributes that
>have no counterparts in HTML on the tags that otherwise map reasonably well.
>
>
>Jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Freese, Eric D. (LNG-DAY)
>To: 'sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org'
>Sent: 11/12/2003 8:57 AM
>Subject: RE: [sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
>
>As I said (when the 3rd time was the charm) - No, XHTML is not enough
>for my
>requirements because we want to use full (real) XML with our own
>semantic
>markup. I doubt XHTML would even meet a 20% usefulness level for us.
>Anyone else?
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
>>[mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]On Behalf Of Murray Altheim
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 7:58 AM
>>To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>>Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>..............................................................
>>.............
>>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.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3259489.stm
>>
>> Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage? ...a euphemism for BushCo.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sc34wg3 mailing list
>>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>sc34wg3 mailing list
>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>_______________________________________________
>sc34wg3 mailing list
>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>
>
--
*********************************************
Diderot Track bv - Consultants in Information
Phone: +31 (0) 70 3966305
Fax: +31 (0) 70 3966304
Email: a.kamsteeg@diderottrack.nl
Web: www.diderottrack.nl
*********************************************