Friday, June 28, 2002

social agenda of XML/SGML #

Recently, I came across talk about the "social agenda of SGML".  Here's a quote (from Jon Bosak): In other words, the traditional technical and social agenda of SGML can now be realized on a world-wide scale. And what many people in the traditional SGML community already know, but the world at large has yet to understand, is that the SGML agenda now being carried forward by XML is profoundly revolutionary. Consider what SGML is all about from the user's standpoint. SGML is basically about the ownership of content. SGML says that content belongs to its creators, not to the makers of document creation tools. The alternative that SGML offers has always been very clear: either create your content in a proprietary word processing or desktop publishing format and bind yourself to a perpetual upgrade relationship with a particular vendor, or choose the SGML road and work with vendors whose business case is built on interoperability. XML does nothing to change this basic choice. What it does is to guarantee that the user-empowering, vendor-independent approach will relatively quickly go from a position espoused by a few true believers to the foundation upon which the world will be building its online communication infrastructure. It means that doing the right thing will become the majority view. And this means a fundamental shift in the relationship between the producers and consumers of document creation software.   Posted by Raymond Yee on 6/28/02; 4:54:41 PM from the Web Technology dept. Discuss

Digital Commons (New Left Review) #

Superb review of Richard Stallman's work and ideas and the implications for a digital commons.  Here's a quote: Many of the advantages that work in favour of free software also apply to other goods—particularly, but not solely, those in digital form. The argument about the efficiency that results from rapid peer review is of considerable importance. At www.foresight.org, K. Eric Drexler’s pioneering essay on the potential of hypertext points up the fact that conversation on paper develops slowly (certainly in academic circles), due to the time needed for review, resubmission, publication and distribution, and the same is true of any riposte that may be published. What is more, the final result remains unchangeable, and isolated from the comments it has provoked. Hypertext allows for rapid revision, collapses the time-scale involved in getting a response and can link all related texts together. Free copying, linking and alteration are essential to this process. With cultural works, the right to alter is a free speech issue, as becomes clear when artists are sued for tampering with images of Barbie, using company logos or even invoking company names. Corporations not only want to give their brands and images powerful cultural currency, but also to control their further use. To be unable to play with the image of Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald due to the threat of litigation is a fundamental form of cultural censorship. Equally, the copying and alteration of online art works by other artists has been very important to the development of much Net art—theft being seen as a form of flattery. Lynn, I'm glad that you secured the rights to use the video. I will write more about the scholar's box soon (being encouraged by your mention of it).  Chris has already thoughtfully commented on a draft of an opinion piece I'm writing for D-Lib.  I'll tell more about what I'm writing soon....   Posted by Raymond Yee on 6/28/02; 12:08:59 PM from the Unclassified dept. Discuss