[SCL] Re: Common Logic status with respect to standards

[Murray Altheim]

pat hayes wrote:
 > Murray Altheim wrote:
 >> I feel I don't yet understand exactly what will
 >> be required of the syntax, and I simply won't jump into this project
 >> until I do. I really hate being the arbiter of a design that's not
 >> mine to design, especially when it's not a domain I feel all that
 >> comfortable with. But I'm willing to try. I think Chris and I will
 >> perhaps be able to work out something once he has his draft available.
 >
 > Look, sorry if Ive sounded a bit bombastic lately.  I think there are
 > two things here. We need a vanilla XMl syntax in the short term: maybe
 > he DTD we have is enough for this. We also *will* need a much more
 > ambitious XML language suitable for Web use. I have every confidence
 > that we can find a way to use your undoubted expertise in designing
 > this: in fact, I see it as being your design  with the rest of us making
 > side comments and giviing occasional advice, maybe reining in your
 > enthusiasms now and again ;-). And I take your point that we don't yet
 > have a decent spec for this, so lets give up trying to get it done by
 > the 17th

As John said recently about me, we're all passionate about things. That
makes us all often hard to get along with. The XML Topic Maps group was
the same, a bunch of hotheads, me included. And that doesn't diminish in
the least my profound affection for some of those people. But I think
it goes with the territory. If we weren't smart and passionate and
committed to doing the "right thing" in our own minds, this would all
just end in dissolution. It's getting us all on the same page and to
not fight with each other continually, that's the difficult task.

 >> I also must note that you're catching me at about the worst time,
 >> between now and the first week or so of December, as I'm trying to
 >> finish up a first release of my own project's software as part of
 >> my Ph.D., and this will take higher priority. In fact, if my advisors
 >> knew I was even considering volunteer work on SCL, they'd boil me in
 >> oil.
 >
 > I wont tell a soul. BUt I agree it is hard to think of a worse time to
 > be in a rush.

I'm not feeling too good about any of it. Mid-Ph.D. blues and all.
Thank god I'm not suicidal. I'd have jumped into the Milton Keynes
canal long ago.

 >> To that effect, do the SCL and XCL (or whatever it's called in the
 >> end) deliverables have the same schedule?
 >
 > Lets say no, as long as that doesn't lose you altogether.

It may be possible to have the initial XML syntax and the later,
richer syntax be *very* compatible. I know it's asking a lot, but
if you glance over my original XCL spec from last May at

   http://www.altheim.com/specs/xcl/1.0/

you'll see that I designed a "level 1" and "level 2" syntax which
have precisely the design goals you've described above, the
vanilla (level 1), and the web-ified (level 2). That May spec might
not be exactly what you want in its details, but in approach I still
think it's close to what you want. (e.g., I might at this point drop
the XLink approach in Level 2 and just design our own syntax for
links.) So if you want to read over that briefly, it'll give you an
idea of where I'd head if you let me freely wander...

We *may* be able to have the vanilla syntax done close to that
date, depending on how Chris and I get along.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                         http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK                    .

    "The parties themselves, working with the Arab nations, have to find a
    way to co-operate to fight terror, without putting American forces in
    an area where they will become targets."
                              -- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.
                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2989154.stm