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

Re: RE: Word processors and semantic content

  • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • To: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:09:28 -0500

Re:  RE: Word processors and semantic content
You guys should use Xopus over the web :) 

We have very non technical users creating XML Schema valid content
basically in the same way they work with a regular word processor.

best,
-Rob

p.s. Hey Laurens, do I get a discount if they buy? :)


On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 12:41 -0500, Cox, Bruce wrote:
> I'd have to agree.  The USPTO tried some years ago to persuade
> applicants to submit patent applications in XML with very little
> success.  Those few corporate customers who adopted the tools we gave
> them (MS Word with template conversion to XML) produced documents that
> were not reliably structured.  While the software itself was
> problematic, the bigger issue was that the person creating the document
> did not use the styles (structures) appropriately (abstract tagged as
> the last claim, for example).  You could argue that it's only a matter
> of training the users in the conceptual model of the patent application
> contained in the structure of the underlying schema, and then they'd be
> able to correctly populate that structure, but I don't think so.  These
> were folks who knew all about the structure of a patent application
> (professional clerks in very large IP law firms), but had no economic
> motivation to be careful with the markup.
> 
> As I see it, the conceptual (abstract logical) model of a document (of
> any kind) extant in any given culture is vague, but very powerful.
> Anyone who uses typewriter/word processor tools has a tacit model that
> is based on a "blank page" paradigm that bestows nearly unlimited
> freedom of layout.  Think of the difference of appearance between a
> formal wedding invitation and a legal brief presented to a court, and
> you'll see that a great deal of highly significant information is
> conveyed through the layout.  In both cases, the tacit model is
> elaborated into more-or-less detailed models more-or-less explicitly
> specified in either manuals of etiquette or through long exposure while
> studying law.  In the case of patent applications, the Manual of Patent
> Examining Procedure provides a great deal of detail about the content of
> an application but usually does not compel specific format or layout
> (all 100+ forms are optional).  The manner in which the rules are
> expressed is such that a great deal of flexibility is retained by the
> applicant while ensuring that the Office gets what it needs to examine
> the application in accord with the law.  Creating a successful patent
> application is the art of conforming to the rules of the MPEP, correctly
> using language to which the courts have assigned specific
> interpretations, disclosing the invention to one of ordinary skill in
> the art while escaping the attention of competitors, and still
> compelling the examiner to allow the application.  How do you create an
> authoring tool that enables that process without sacrificing sufficient,
> correct structure?
> 
> The cost of adding explicit structure (markup) to a document is offset
> by the savings achieved with the automatic processing that the markup
> enables.  I used to think that, as the WWII-induced mania for
> industrializing all aspects of human discourse continues into the 21st
> century, it would happen that the tacit document model and the
> blank-page paradigm would evolve into something friendlier to explicit
> structure, largely because of the introduction of programming skills at
> earlier and earlier stages of formal schooling.  I'm not so sure any
> more, especially since most of the markup people encounter today is HTML
> and other types of primordial ooze conveyed through the WWW.  Things
> will be different, but will they be better?
> 
> Until the tacit model (and human behavior along with it) changes, I
> suspect that the outcome of Microsoft vs. ODF is irrelevant.  At
> present, both of them appear to perpetuate rather than change the tacit
> model.  Perhaps Google has the best opportunity to do otherwise, but
> I've seen nothing yet to suggest that they will.
> 
> Bruce B Cox
> US Patent & Trademark Office
> Manager, Standards Development Division
> 
> The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
> do not represent the official views of the US Patent & Trademark Office.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurens van den Oever [mailto:laurens@x...] 
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:50 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Word processors and semantic content
> 
> Dear List,
> 
> I enjoyed reading Elliotte's Future of XML article [1]. He made some
> interesting comments and sharp observations.
> 
> But I disagree with one of the key statements in the article. 
> I'd like to share my thoughts with the list and learn what you think.
> 
> At one point Elliotte says:
> 
>  "Traditionally, you see two hard problems in training non-techies to
> write for the Web: teaching them semantic markup and showing them how to
> use FTP."
> 
> And:
> 
>  "XML-enabled word processors like OpenOffice and Microsoft Word solve
> the first problem."
> 
> I don't think the first problem is solved. Word processors aren't going
> to magically create semantic markup now that they can dump their
> internal models to XML files.
> 
> To me the semantic authoring problem is the problem of having non
> technical people creating semantic (and structured) content that meets
> the requirements set by the use of that content.
> 
> If you're creating a plain weblog, a word processor may offer sufficient
> semantics. But if you have requirements that impose a structure that is
> more complex than HTML with custom tags, for instance nested sections,
> or a required element order, the flexibility (which is perceived as
> usability) of a word processor does more harm than good IMHO.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> Disclaimer: As an XML editor vendor, I'm biased, especially since our
> core business is structured editing for non-techies.
> 
> [1] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-xml2008prevw.html
> 
> Laurens van den Oever
> CEO
> Xopus Company
> 
> laurens at xopus.com
> http://xopus.com
> 
> +31 70 4452345
> Waldorpstraat 17G
> 2521 CA Den Haag
> The Netherlands
> 
> KvK 27308787
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> 
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.