Quoting Mike Taylor <mike_at_INDEXDATA.COM>:
>
> 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
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Fri Apr 30 2010 - 14:13:22 EDT