W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Pencil & Paper / StratML

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1352742022.66423.YahooMailNeo@web112604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
Cc: "eGov IG \(Public\)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Paola,

Much of the validation work for XML was done in the previous two decades.  At the time, "embrace, extend, extinguish" was in full flower.  There are still some 

echos of this, and they need to be documented lest the impression be left that datatype validation is an "old" (and vaguely unsucessful, but only old guys remember it anyway) technology.  There were always two choices, 1) XML in a rich text (XHTML) container and 2) a rich text (XHTML) container for XML [1,2]


A switch in emphasis to the Semantic Web and a web of Resources  presents some new challenges for validity with the assumptions of continuous connectivity and federalization of reference ID's.  In addition, the math of Natural Resources from a purely economic perspective is wrong and always has been.  These are different challanges, and not a progression.  It should be remembered that if XML tools do not work "in the laboratory" they are unlikely to work "in the wild" (the bad math simply provides an uncertainty "bonus").  The problem of systemic predatory behavior toward the "weak" in information has no means to disappear, and so must be addressed.


So, yes I think cookbook examples of pristine experiments are helpful because they save some time, and decrease uncertainty, which can then be devoted to study of life "in the wild".

--Gannon

[1] www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#well-formed
[2] <blink> tags in the Magna Carta are not innovation, get over it.



________________________________
 From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> 
Cc: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pencil & Paper / StratML
 

Gannon

I have been thinking validation lately, and all the possible implications of validity


I looked at the link you sent under the same heading 
http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/xsd/egADMS/

and liked the links to various formats, 

is this a process that you are suggesting/describing/creating called 'pen and paper. aka manually editing
a file to make it valid?


thanks

PDM



On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:

I wanted to post this before the ISWC got underway.
>
>
>background
>========
>When I was in College, the half-life of an engineering degree was said to be five years.  Half of the (new) technology vocabulary would be obsolete in five years.  This may be better or worse in some disciplines, but still largely true for the foreseeable future.  This is not just a problem for STEM Graduates, but for the young who don't know and for the retired no longer connected to full time work and the familiarity with new technology that brings.
>
>
>Security concerns around Cross-Platform Validation were never "solved" so much as overcome.  So, Pencil & Paper (manual editing) is not a new Luddism, it is simply transparentcy which may highlight and mitigate risks from predatory behavior unforeseen but for continueing education.
>
>
>Social Networking, Linked Data and the Semantic Web are by no means immune.  The concept of retroactive bad choices is not itself very old, as bad a concept as it is turning out to be.
>
>
>
>================
>
>
>I posted Pencil & Paper examples for StratML, with XHTML 1.0 ... ADMS used XHTML 1.1
>
>
>http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/xsd/stratml/
>
>
>--Gannon
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>To: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2012 3:53 PM
>Subject: Pencil & Paper
> 
>
>Where confidentiality requirements are temporary a complex, ready-for-anything firewall can be replaced by inside source control generated XML.  This can be brought home, commented, marked up, validated, spell checked, etc. then taken back to work stripped of commentary, tagged marginalia and checked back in.  None of this requires any modification of the specifications (W3C or even IETF) or third-party supervision.
>
>
>An example of an ADMS Repository is here:  http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/xsd/egADMS/
>
>
>I have similar documentation for MODS, JATS, StratML etc. as mentioned below.
>
>
>--Gannon
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>To: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org>; Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Prepublication Public Sector Information (was: Data Mining / Cloud Computing)
> 
>
>Hi Phil and All,
>
>======earlier======
>
>Using Xerces, I've been able to validate (entirely off-line) XML Documents in the following formats:  StratML, JATS Journal Publishing (ANSI), JATS Article 
Authoring (ANSI), MODS (US LOC), DWML (NOAA) as well as embedded 
versions in XHTML 1.1.  As soon as I am able to publish examples I will 
(along with a zip file containing the interlinked XSD Sxhema.  This 
method is not as "good" as DTD's, but it is much smaller and gets the 
basics right.
>================https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ADMS-enabled%20Federation%20of%20Semantic%20Asset%20Repositories_Brochure_1.pdf
>
>
>
>If I were going to add ADMS XML as an example, which flavor would you suggest ?  Please don't say "all of them" unless you have too much money cluttering up your desk :-) 
>
>
>--Gannon
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 17:40:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 November 2012 17:40:52 GMT