Modelling the universe
Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:11 am
I'm concerned that with all of our best efforts we are not constraining ISO15926 RDL content to a practical working set but are regularly expanding it beyond reasonable and necessary limits. There are significant issues with maintaining the current RDL content, I don't need to remind anyone of that and yet in recent work I see concepts such as Language, Font Family, Paper Size, Pen styles... requiring class definitions in the RDL.
We need to find a way to utilise the technologies that we are embracing as intended and avoid the redefinition of terms already well described, documented and standardised within the technical communities that we work. For example language qualification is built into the heart of the semantic web technologies but recent template work when implemented with Part 8 as it currently stands requires a totally different approach.
Is there a way that Part 2 practices, template definition work and Part 8 implementation can refocus it's efforts to reduce the size, cost and effort involved in RDL maintenance by not requiring such contents to be defined in ISO15926 repositories?
We need to find a way to utilise the technologies that we are embracing as intended and avoid the redefinition of terms already well described, documented and standardised within the technical communities that we work. For example language qualification is built into the heart of the semantic web technologies but recent template work when implemented with Part 8 as it currently stands requires a totally different approach.
Is there a way that Part 2 practices, template definition work and Part 8 implementation can refocus it's efforts to reduce the size, cost and effort involved in RDL maintenance by not requiring such contents to be defined in ISO15926 repositories?