RE: Advancing the GCT Proposal

Owen,

I am at a loss to understand how my note on GCT stimulated response.  Can you connect the dots for me?

Is it that you would like to use GCT in conjunction with the maintenance of the database of strategic plans?

Have you tried it on specimen documents?  Is there experience to be shared about what works and what does not?

 - Dennis

PONDERINGS

 1. I have no idea what this is about and what it has to do with the CTMarkup effort, especially the GCT Proposal.  That is, I don't think the development of GCT needs to be mindful of StratML in any particular way.

 2. With regard to anything that the W3C might do, I think this is the wrong venue since by its nature, a Community Group is informal with respect to what the W3C does as a standards-development consortium.  I don't follow that either, perhaps because I see GCT as Generic.

I also won't be spending CHF 88 for an 18 page ISO specification.  

However, from the abstract, ISO 17469-1:2015 appears to be completely orthogonal to what GCT provides as a generic form of change tracking.  GCT is completely agnostic about the use of particular elements for any specific purpose, whether elements aligned with Dublin Core or defined for StartML.  If it became more entangled than that, I think that would be a mistake.

Could it be my mention of hooking to (but not providing) semantic conditions/constraints that suggests something?


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Ambur [mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 14:19
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'Alejandro Revuelta'; George Bina; 'Robin LaFontaine'; Gannon Dick; Betsy Fanning; public-change@w3.org; Joe Carmel; 'Paul Maassen'; 'miska knapek'; 'Owen Ambur'; 'Crispin Butteriss'; 'keefe murren'; 'Joseph Foti'
Subject: RE: Advancing the GCT Proposal

Dennis, as Robin knows, I'd love to see strategic plans rendered in valid
ISO 17469-1 format taken as test/use cases for an XML change tracking
standard.

[ ... ]

Received on Monday, 15 June 2015 22:00:36 UTC