Re: SUO: Re: Registry etc.
John:
Thanks for your patience. Okay, well it's not clear that all members feel the same way as you and Matthew do. For example, Patrick Cassidy believes, apparently, that a registry is a necessary condition for incorporating inconsistent content; Jean-Luc Delatre and Seth Russell seem to believe that it's necessary and maybe sufficient to turn the SUO into some amazing translation tool, i.e., for the people on this end, the registry is an end in itself, the SUO is a registry.
OTOH, Cathy Legg is saying that it's only (mostly?) a tool for version control, Matthew West and you are saying something perhaps a little bit stronger; it's a key development tool, but not the end goal of the development. As noted, I'm probably not seeing things that much differently than y'all over on this side.
I'm getting a bit tired of playing a/the bitchy guy role and I just have to stop writing email, so you can probably get me to acquiesce to almost anything soon, but I really do remain concerned that it just is not at all clear to what Motion 2 commits us.
Mike
At 12:21 PM 6/6/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Mike,
>
>I completely support all of Matthew's points.
>
>In particular, I emphasize:
>
>MW> A registry is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
>
>The goal is the development of the content to be
>standardized. A registry is a tool for getting us
>from here to there.
>
>Simply placing something in the registry does not
>make it a standard -- it merely makes it convenient
>to find it and to find further information (metadata)
>about the content, and who, what, when, where, and why
>it was developed.
>
>Anybody can place anything that they consider
>relevant in a registry. But the decision of which
>modules are to be given a privileged status can
>only be made by a vote of the entire SUO WG.
>
>John
>
>