- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:42:02 -0600
- To: "'Chris Lilley'" <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
I should submit a text change, but I think it best to look at this by example first. Please pardon a description of what may be merely obvious to the rest of the list. There are two definitions which can illustrate the applicable range of meaning: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/indexes/glossary/interoperability.html 1. "Interoperability the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged [IEEE 90]." http://www.itscanada.ca/html/AGM1999/present/ntcip/tsld010.htm 2. "Interoperability Definition The ability of systems to provide services to and accept services from other systems and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. ISO TC 204 Document N271 (Adoption Proposed by ITS America)" I think number 1 is the stricter definition supported by the syntax. It denotes how the basic XML agreement, the syntax agreement, supports interoperability as "the ability of systems to exchange information" but use of the information exchanged happens at the application level of agreements (in XML, an application language such as SVG where semantics are defined) "the ability to use the information exchanged" Number two is the definition some attribute to XML but actually is the second part of definition 1 expressed as the operation of requesting services. It requires deeper agreements such as the XML family of specifications can enable if not directly provide. I can accept the first definition a bit more uncritically but unless we explain how application layer agreements enabled by XML syntax provide a standard means to develop the ability to use the information exchanged, we don't have the whole story. So, how long an explanation is needed here? We shouldn't be teaching XML theory in the architecture document. I can live with the first definition and it could be gotten by citation. [IEEE 90] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY: 1990. len -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 4:22:20 PM, Claude wrote: BCLL> requires a more formal statement. I would agree with that. BCLL> o the term 'interoperability' is vague and BCLL> has created misunderstanding in the past; a more BCLL> formal definition of the term is needed, Yes. Clearly a common syntax does not, in and of itself, convey any interoperability above the syntactic level. XML 1.0 or 1.1 provide a common syntax and *that is all*, with the exception of id an unscoped document-wide unique identifier xml:lang a scoped description of the human language used. Taking 'XML' in a wider scope of 'XML related specifications' then typing based on the Infoset or the PSVI, common access methods via DOM Core XML, relative URI reference disambiguation via xml:base, hypermedia link recognition through XLink, and so on are additional pieces of benefit that the 'XML family' provides. I agree there is good reason to differentiate "what XML 1.x provides" from "what the XML family of spec provide" and this should be clarified in the next draft. BCLL> o a formal statement of the relationship of XML BCLL> to "interoperability" is needed if the cited text BCLL> remains. Please feel free to suggest one that is aimed at the sort of interoperability that XML does provide. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:42:45 UTC