Re: XML Schemas/DTD for HealthCare Industry

[Ken North]

Ken said: >> It's true we do not have a W3C Recommendation for schemas, but that's not what determines whether a schema is proprietary or not. >>   Rachel said: << I beg to differ with your opinion about what constitutes a proprietary schema vs a "standard". <<   If you re-read my message, you'll see it does express an opinion about what constitutes a standard. In fact, it does not mention the word standard.   Rachel said: << In the world of standards, the label standard is typically reserved for those that have been approved by a recognized standards development organization, most often accredited or sanctioned by one of several organizations, such as ANSI, ISO, UN/CEFACT, and so on. This would also include the IETF RFC's. <<   I'd add there are de facto standards and de jure standards. Based on your list, you seem to be making the argument that anything that is not a de jure standard is proprietary.   We are not in agreement about this. If I'm deciding whether something is proprietary, I ask first whether it is public domain (below) or available without restriction, not whether it conforms to an international standard.    public domain n(1832)   2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large ...   Consider open source software and other works that people create and release to the public domain. The Linux operating system, for example, is not published as an ANSI/ISO standard or IETF RFC. If we assume your definition ("something is proprietary if it is not a standard"), then Linux is a proprietary operating system.   I also disagree with the interpretation that something which is a standard is not proprietary.   pro�pri�e�tar�y [snip] 4. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent.   You can look to encryption algorithms to illustrate the distinction between proprietary, public domain, and standard. The Tiny Encryption Algorithm is a non-proprietary encryption algorithm because David Wheeler and Roger Needham placed TEA in the public domain, not because TEA is an ISO or other standard.   On the other hand, the US government has accepted Ron Rivest's RC6 encryption algorithm as a finalist to become the new federal Advanced Encryption Standard. RC6 is patented technology, so by definition 4 above, it is proprietary.  RSA has said it will waive patent licensing fees if RC6 is accepted as the new encryption standard --   nonetheless, RC6 could be both standard and pro�pri�e�tar�y.    So getting back to my original point:   If I create a schema, register it with xml.org and biztalk.org, release it to the public domain, or otherwise make it freely available, it is not proprietary just because we do not have a standard for schemas. It is by definition non-standard, but non-standard is not a synonym for proprietary.   ------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------ Homepage http://www.XMLedi-Group.org Unsubscribe send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leave the subject and body of the message blank Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To receive only one message per day (digest format) send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], (leave the subject line blank) digest xmledi-group your-email-address To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at: http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm