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

So you don't have any issues with the architecture document, a current
issue, nor do you wish to raise a new issue?

As such, I think that the minutes accurately reflect Paul's statement.  I
certainly wouldn't feel shame in saying the same statement.  The TAG
document, nor any findings or issues, provide a formal definition of
interoperability.  And I think that's by design so far.

I don't think any changes are needed to the minutes.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:22 AM
> To: 'Dan Connolly'
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE:
> [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))
>
>
>
> 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
> remains.
>
> len
>
> -----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
> or
>   * raising a new issue
>
> Otherwise,
>
>   "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 14:09:00 UTC