Survey 'Freestyle Markup Language'

IT trade fair CeBIT, Hannover, Germany, 05.-06.03.2010

  1. Form 'Markup Interference'

    Survey Interference

    Crossover/concurring markup of two text characteristics: underline (Tag <u>), font-color green (Tag <g>).

    1. I understand markup and model for the interference-scenario: XML{yes/no} FML{yes/no}
    2. The FML approach seems plausible: FML{yes/no}
    3. The following markup better represents the scenario: XML{yes/no} FML{yes/no}
    4. Personally I prefer: XML{yes/no} FML{yes/no}
    5. The FML approach has potential for acceptability: FML{yes/no}
    6. I can think of the following real use cases for interference markup: ...
    7. General remarks: ...

  2. Results 'Markup Interference'

    1. I understand markup and model for the interference-scenario! 100% (24/24)
    2. The FML approach seems plausible! 100% (24/24)
    3. FML better represents the scenario! 83% (20/24)
    4. Personally I prefer FML! 50% (12/24)
    5. The FML approach has potential for acceptability! 67% (16/24)

  3. Form 'Markup Congruence'

    Survey Congruence

    Congruent markup (no hierarchy enforcement) of two text characteristics: underline (Tag <u>), font-color green (Tag <g>).

    1. I understand markup and model for the congruence-scenario: XML{yes/no} FML{yes/no}
    2. The FML approach seems plausible: FML{yes/no}
    3. The following markup better represents the scenario: XML{yes/no} FML{yes/no}
    4. Personally I prefer: XML{yes/no} FML{yes/no}
    5. The FML approach has potential for acceptability: FML{yes/no}
    6. I can think of the following real use cases for interference markup: ...
    7. General remarks: ...

  4. Results 'Markup Congruence'

    1. I understand markup and model for the congruence-scenario! 100% (24/24)
    2. The FML approach seems plausible! 100% (24/24)
    3. FML better represents the scenario! 71% (17/24)
    4. Personally I prefer FML! 67% (16/24)
    5. The FML approach has potential for acceptability! 79% (19/24)

  5. Form 'Markup Independence'

    Survey Independence

    Markup of two perspectives in the same document:
    1. linguistic perspective (Prefix 'ling', Tags <subjekt>, <prädikat>, <objekt>)
    2. stylistic perspective (Prefix 'stil', Tags <u>, <g>)

    1. I understand markup and model for the independence-scenario: {yes/no}
    2. The FML concept seems plausible: {yes/no}
    3. Functionality is reasonable: {yes/no}
    4. The FML approach has potential for acceptability: {yes/no}
    5. I can think of the following real use cases for interference markup: ...
    6. General remarks: ...

  6. Results 'Markup Independence'

    1. I understand markup and model for the independence-scenario! 96% (23/24)
    2. The FML approach seems plausible! 91% (22/24)
    3. Independence functionality is reasonable! 79% (19/24)
    5. The FML approach has potential for acceptability! 63% (15/24)

  7. Form 'Markup Segmentation'

    Survey Segmentation

    1. I understand markup and model for the segmentation-scenario: {yes/no}
    2. The segmentation concept seems plausible: {yes/no}
    3. Functionality is reasonable: {yes/no}
    4. The segmentation approach has potential for acceptability: {yes/no}
    5. I can think of the following real use cases for interference markup: ...
    6. General remarks: ...

  8. Results 'Markup Segmentation'

    1. I understand markup and model for the segmentation-scenario! 88% (21/24)
    2. The segmentation concept seems plausible! 71% (17/24)
    3. Segmentation functionality is reasonable! 54% (13/24)
    5. The FML approach has potential for acceptability! 13% (3/24)

  9. Participants

    The following companies and institutions supported the survey with an experienced XML-developer: