[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: When Spam

• To: "Bullard Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: When Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam)
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:20:17 -0500
• Cc: "'Michael Champion'" <mc@x...>, "'XML DEV'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F39B@h...>

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Possibly but I don't think so.  I get a message from
> that address about twice a week.  Because of the title,
> this mail will get one too.  It just doesn't appreciate
> Monty Python. :-)
> 
> "Spam Spam Spam Spam"
> 
> Anywho... better topic.  When designing vocabularies for
> very large communities, how do youse guys/y'all/anyone
> approach the dilemma of scale vs localization?  

With a well-thought-out and well-publicized extension methodology that
provides clear guidance for the local usage of a vocabulary as to how it
should extend the core vocabulary, and under what circumstances. Also
how extensions should be fed back to the governance body (there should
be one!) for consideration for incorporation into the core vocabulary.

UBL has a nice Working Draft [1] for "Guidelines for the Customization
of UBL Schemas" that one might find interesting and useful.

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World

[1]
http://ubl.cim3.org/~lcsc/lcsc-distribution-v1-0-beta/UBLv1-beta/cm/wd-cmsc-cmguidelines-1.0-beta.html

> In reading
> a currently proposed language, we find that the approach
> taken was to review some n number of examples and boil
> that down to some n number of productions.  It seems
> sensible enough until one actually tries to implement
> that for local sites and discovers how much customization
> one puts back to deal with the fact that boiling it
> down proved to be locally lossy even if globally complete.
> 
> Of course, XSLT cures all ills, but ....
> 
> len
> 
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...]
> 
> On Feb 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 
> > Automation just ain't smart enough.  Note reason.
> 
> Or people ain't smart enough to install decent spam filters, or virus
> scanners that don't spam the random addresses in an infected machines
> address book that are forged in outgoing spam.  The state of the
> automation art is well beyond this.  [I'm still infatuated with
> SpamBayes after a year]
> 
> For all we know, this was generated by one of those spam filters
> advertised by spamming :-)
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>

• References:
  • Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: When Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: When Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam)
• Next by Date: RE: XML publishing frameworks and software methodologies
• Previous by thread: Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: When Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam)
• Next by thread: Re: Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: When Spam Filter s Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread