Jay,
  I think my original fontificied verbalizatory dataset (comment) is being
taken to new zenicentric longitudes (heights). My only point was that
interoperability is not a word in the English language. Neither is
metadata, and especially metadata vocabularies. It's not a matter of
"understanding every message", but it is a matter of when it is and when it is
not necessary to introduce new terminology. My Ph.D. is in physics. There's
gads of jargon in physics, but it may all be looked up in any standard or
scientific dictionary.
The phrase "quantum chromodynamics", for example, was invented because
there was a need to label an entirely new phenomenon and associated field of
study. There was no choice. I still read many articles which baffle me, but a
quick check in any number of reference books clears it all up. I'm afraid
"compatibility" and "spread sheet" (or how about matrix?) will do just fine
for many years to come. I've been in science long enough now (and museum work
to a lesser extent) to know if you want to retain the interest and respect of
the public and your peers, you need to speak concisely and plainly. 

metaregards,
Steve





Jay Heuman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Lucy et al.:
> 
> > All this is perfectly true, but Steve's point is still well
> > taken that a pitch for something is best written in ways
> > the audience understands.
> 
> I am sure the original poster worded the message for the *desired*
> audience.
> 
> "Desired" audience is the key here . . . after all, not every seminar,
> course, book, etc. is marketed to everyone.  Within the museum field,
> there are people who work with volunteers, retail, educational groups,
> etc. who do not (necessarily) have to know about meta-this or
> inter-that.  However, the information technology and collections
> research folks are probably aware of that jargon.
> 
> > An indecipherable message certainly won't get results
> > and you might as well save your key tap time.  I,
> > personally, was even more turned off by the flood of
> > acronyms, of which I was familiar with only a few. I think I
> > gave up on that message after about the second paragraph.
> 
> And you demonstrate that a message that you cannot understand is of no
> interest to you.  However, those who did understand that message may
> very well be interested.
> 
> Question: Why do you assume everyone should understand every message?
> 
> Yours truly,
> 
> Jay Heuman
> 
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
> 
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).
> 
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail

========================================================Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).