Re: SUO: Re: Registry etc.
Mike,
It seems to me that Matthew, Pat, Erik, Cathy, Adam,
and I have compatible views with just a difference
in emphasis. To summarize:
1. A registry is not a content standard.
2. A registry is a tool that facilitates the development,
testing, maintenance, and storage of every intermediate
step along the way toward a content standard.
3. Having a registry does not in any way deflect the attention,
effort, or commitment of the SUO Working Group from the
development of a content standard.
4. Without a registry, it is more difficult to keep track of
the sources, the modifications, and the reasons for each
modification.
5. Different people have said that a registry is useful,
valuable, important, desirable, or essential. Those are
differences of emphasis, but they are all on the positive
rather than the negative side of the fence.
All of those opinions imply that we should have a registry.
On the other hand, there is a very serious difference of opinion
that has nothing to do with a registry: whether it is possible
to have a single, universal, widely accepted SUO.
That is a matter of opinion that can only be settled by trying to
develop a standard and determining exactly where the problems lie.
If a content standard is possible, a registry will help us get one.
If a content standard is not possible, a registry will help us
identify where the conflicts might be and whether they are truly
unresolvable.
If there are truly unresolvable differences (such as 3D vs 4D),
we might still get an SUO, but with some modules in common
and other modules optional or replaceable. For example, you
might have a module for personal statistics (name, date of birth,
social security number, etc.) which are independent of either
the 3D or the 4D view. But you would have to choose one option
or the other for representing processes.
In any case, having a registry is an advantage, and not having
a registry is a disadvantage.
So what is the problem?
John