RE: ISO 11179; Basic Semantic Repository; Z39.50/STAS
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:24:39 PDT
Subject: RE: ISO 11179; Basic Semantic Repository; Z39.50/STAS 
To: Fritz Lehmann <>,,, edi-new@tegsun.Harvard.EDU,,,,
X-Mailer: Chameleon - TCP/IP for Windows by NetManage, Inc.
Message-id: <Chameleon.>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
>Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 20:21:08 -0700
>From: Fritz Lehmann <>

>    If 11179 fails to have any standardized basic "semantic content" at all, 
>who will provide it?  

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

>     Thanks for clarifying the relation of ISO 11179 to the EDI BSR
>(Basic Semantic Repository).  Denis Hill, head of the UN BSR committee,
>has said things a number of times in email that seem to warn against
>excessive attention to correctness and detail, so that the BSR effort can
>move forward fast as a practical matter.  

That is an incorrect conclusion as to Denis Hill's position. What is 
happening is Denis is refusing to be side-tracked by red-herrrings. There
is a lot of care going into the semantic content of the BSR by the whole
production team INCLUDING Denis Hill.

>This is quite legitimate, but
>I am reminded that the same "practical orientation" (dispensing with
>careful analysis of meanings and coordinating of different sources)

That is not happening with the BSR. You really should stop listening
to people who don't know what is actually happening. PLEASE GET

I must say you are surprising me. You are usually quite careful about
analysis and conclusions. Why are you being so stupid in this case?

Ken Steel
The University of Melbourne
Department of Computer Science