Quoting Mike Taylor <[email protected]>:
It's a shame. I can see the reasons why the committee took it the way
they did, but the whole exercise has ended up smelling of architecture
astronautics. See this column if you're not familiar with the term,
it's a good read:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html
Speaking as someone who was on the committee, I can tell you that
there was not a consensus on "going astronautic." Although some of us
fought a good (well, at least hard) fight, the astronauts won. And if
you think the text of the final standard is dense, you should have
seen version 0.1! Eric Hellman wrote a revised version that was 1) in
English 2) made sense, but that, too, was rejected.
If you want to see my reaction to being presented with the "Bison
Fute'" model [1] on the first day of the OpenURL committee meeting,
download this [2] PPT and play it as a slide show (it is
self-animated). (It helps you get the joke if you know that "Bison
Fute'" means "wily buffalo".)
kc
[1] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july01/vandesompel/07vandesompel.html
[2] http://kcoyle.net/presentations/cpm3.ppt
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
