From Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com Wed May 23 19:39:24 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:39:14 -0700 From: Doug Mahugh Subject: RE: Scope-Durusau-11, NamingDIS29500-Durusau-12, VML-Durusau-13, Drawing-ML-Durusau-14, OPC-Durusau-15 In-reply-to: <4654C023.3020706@durusau.net> To: "patrick@durusau.net" , Dave Welsh , Frank Farance , Jerry Smith , Jon Bosak , "Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" , Norm Walsh , "Lynne A. Price" , Rex Jaeschke , Richard Barber , Robert Weir , Steve Carton , Tim Schoechle , "Mason, James David (MXM)" , Kevin Trainor , Eduardo Gutentag Content-language: en-US Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: Scope-Durusau-11, NamingDIS29500-Durusau-12, VML-Durusau-13, Drawing-ML-Durusau-14, OPC-Durusau-15 Thread-index: Acedlr89/MFMUjByRzixUpwFRgozUAAFHG3Q acceptlanguage: en-US X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Hi Patrick, Thanks for your comments. It's quite a bit to digest, but I'm working my way through them. One thing that seems to be a recurring basic premise here, which we've discussed before, is the view that DIS 29500 exists to specify an XML representation of a specific pre-existing binary format. As I've explained earlier, I don't agree with that premise. In the contradiction thread, that's why I disagreed with your conclusion: I disagreed with your starting point, so couldn't agree with the conclusion that resulted from building on that starting point. As I mentioned then, I think the custom schema support enabled by OPC is a big part of why DIS 29500 exists. That provides new capabilities that don't exist in the binary formats or other document formats, and a high percentage of the early adopters of the format described by DIS 29500 are taking advantage of those capabilities. Here, with regard to OPC-Durusau-15, it seems you've taken that same premise -- that the sole reason for DIS 29500's existence is an XML representation of an existing binary format -- and built upon it once again. Your argument could be paraphrased as "DIS 29500 only exists for one reason, and the benefits of OPC are not that reason, so OPC should not be included." I disagree, of course, since I see OPC as a key element of what DIS 29500 has to offer implementers. I'll keep reading through your comments to be prepared for more discussion in our next call. Thanks, Doug -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:29 PM To: Dave Welsh; Doug Mahugh; Frank Farance; Jerry Smith; Jon Bosak; Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E; Norm Walsh; Lynne A. Price; Rex Jaeschke; Richard Barber; Robert Weir; Steve Carton; Tim Schoechle; Mason, James David (MXM); Kevin Trainor; Eduardo Gutentag Subject: Scope-Durusau-11, NamingDIS29500-Durusau-12, VML-Durusau-13, Drawing-ML-Durusau-14, OPC-Durusau-15 Greetings! This batch returns to the systemic, proposal wide issues. I think we need to give serious consideration to the question of the scope of DIS 29500 and after putting that question to rest, then decide based on that discussion, what should be in or out of DIS 29500. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Patrick@Durusau.net Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!