In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dieter
Köhler <[log in to unmask]> writes
>According to the "Introduction" on the CIDOC web-site, it is planed to turn
>the Conceptual Reference Model into an ISO standard. Recalling the recent
>thread about ISO's policy regarding language identifiers, I wonder what
>legal and practical implications this has for adopting and using (parts of)
>their ontology for TEI. I have the impression that such issues are getting
>more and more important, as creating ontologies and markup schemes becomes
>a business that makes money.
>Personally I would prefer that best practice for academic text encoding
>discourages the use of such proprietary standards wherever possible, even
>if it is then necessary to develop alternatives for already existing
>standards. The cumulated costs of proprietary standards and their negative
>effect on free information exchange are, in my opinion, too high.
I would strongly support this sentiment myself, and I am somewhat
dismayed to see the CIDOC CRM branded as a "proprietary standard",
simply because it is being put forward as an International Standard.
It is certainly, in practice, being developed by dedicated members of
the museums community for the common good. Whatever policies ISO might
be pursuing, I am sure that CIDOC itself has no intention to license or
otherwise restrict the use of the CRM. (I will certainly be raising
this issue with CIDOC.)
Come to that, where does this line of argument leave the TEI's use of
SGML (ISO 8879-1986) ??
SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy
[log in to unmask]