W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:22:20 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACEF5@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Yes, I read the minutes and saw that discussion 
of appropriate use of this list.

I thought the reply being about the minutes with 
reference to the paragraph number was sufficient. 
I understand your admonition to start a thread 
and excerpt from the minutes.

I am suggesting that this text as shown in the 
minutes( 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML):  Section 3.4)

> "PC: Main reason to use XML is neutral format for interoperability 
> [Chris] 
> xml gives interop 
> major reason "

requires a more formal statement. 

o  the term 'interoperability' is vague and 
has created misunderstanding in the past; a more 
formal definition of the term is needed,

o a formal statement of the relationship of XML 
to "interoperability" is needed if the cited text 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:08 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML)

If your message isn't about the meeting record
(i.e. correction or some such), please change
the subject.

Better yet, start a whole new thread and excerpt
from the minutes.

Also, we ask that you make it clear whether you're
  * suggesting text for the arch doc
  * discussing an open issue
  * raising a new issue


  "General discussion about the Web should take
  place on www-talk@w3.org."
   -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#tips

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:42, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Re Section 3.4:  
> "PC: Main reason to use XML is neutral format for interoperability 
> [Chris] 
> xml gives interop 
> major reason "
> This is a difficult concept without some definition of interoperability.
> As stated, it is a bit too breezy for an architecture document.  We've 
> had problems with the term "interoperability" since the CALS usage of 
> it for SGML.  It tends to imply that moving XML among systems is 
> sufficient to enable them to interoperate at the semantic level, 
> that is, blindly.  This is not the case.
> XML ensures portability of data.
> Portable data enables interoperability.
> Systems interoperate.  By definition, networked systems require selectors 
> to choose among equally probable options.  XML cannot in and 
> of itself, being a syntax, enable interoperability.  More is 
> required.  I'm not sure how one goes about saying what that 
> more is, except to relate it to the protocol verbs and interpretation 
> of the content of an XML document.
> len
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 10:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC