[tm-pubsubj-comment] Re: [topicmaps-comment] Republication of XTM 1.0under OASIS

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Bernard,

Bringing this to the public comments list is the right thing to do. I
happen to be a non-prospective member, a member of the HumanMarkup TC
whose work is inextricably entwined with that of Topic Maps in all of
its areas. The reason I am not a prospective member is that another
of our members is looking into taking on that role with an eye toward
establishing a formal liaison, as I am doing with the Web Services
Component Model TC.

I mention all of this because the HumanMarkup TC also migrated to
OASIS from a separate incarnation as a more private group and we are
also looking into the members section option. We, fortunately, did
not have a legacy spec to deal with, but we also have to contend with
deciding which issues belong on the public list. We have opted for
keeping all of our discussion on the public list and using the
private list for business which only the TC can vote on and
decide--at least as far as this is practical.

A brief alert: it sometimes happens that we get a little bit sloppy
and neglect to post to both lists when that is necessary.

Best wishes,
Rex Brooks
OASIS HumanMarkup TC Secretary and Webmaster

At 11:55 AM +0100 10/30/01, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>(Sorry for cross-posting, but the subject seems relevant to both
>public and technical debate).
>
>This message is an attempt to bring back to the general forum
>where IMO it belongs a question which has been debated so far in
>the context of OASIS Topic Maps Published Subjects TC
>development, but unfortunately mainly through "private forum"
>exchanges. I regret in fact not to have suggested that the debate
>had to get public from the beginning.
>
>The bottom issue is TopicMaps.Org legacy, namely XTM 1.0
>specification legal status concerning copyright and responsible
>organization. I'll try to sum up the problem, various options
>proposed to tackle it, and why I keep considering - after, I confess,
>a few hesitations during last few days - that it is *not* in the scope
>of PubSubj TC and should be tackled through a specific process.
>
>1. XTM 1.0 specification refers over twenty times to TopicMaps.Org
>as the responsible publishing organization. AFAIK, this
>organization have sort of vanished in Montréal in August, and
>should not be referred to any more, except from an historical
>perspective.
>
>2. XTM 1.0 is published on the web under www.topicmaps.org, but
>technically, this domain name is now hosted and managed on
>OASIS servers by OASIS webmasters. But this is not visible on
>the web.
>
>3. TopicMaps.Org is bound to become an OASIS Member Section,
>but this is yet only prospective.
>
>4. The status of XTM 1.0 DTD (and annexes) vs ISO 13250 is still
>in debate as we have seen lately.
>
>5. The only entity to have legal and actual existence in OASIS, in
>the migration of TopicMaps.Org legacy process, is PubSubj TC.
>Other TCs are prospective, but are not yet even to the stage of
>proposal charter and call for participation.
>
>So it has been proposed that this PubSubj TC extends its charter
>to take in charge the republication of XTM 1.0 under OASIS stamp.
>
>Arguments in favor of that option:
>
>1. It's a simple task, involving no real technical work.
>2. It's the only available process to get the thing done quickly.
>3. Setting a specific TC for that will engage a long and heavy
>process for a small but urgent task.
>
>Arguments against that option:
>
>1. It's not as simple as it seems given the technical, historical and
>legal background of this specification. Clearly enough, the
>republication cannot be done *as is*, the references to
>TopicMaps.Org having to be changed to whatever relevant
>authority, namely a Member Section ... with no legal status so far.
>
>2. I'm afraid it would impede from the beginning PubSubj TC work
>with issues clearly out of its scope. It would put implicitly on the
>shoulders of this TC all the consequences of any problem(s) in this
>republication. Given the history of this document, I can't assume
>there will be none and that all the process will be gentle and
>smooth ...
>
>Well. Enough said. I won't surrender to the argument "this is the
>only way to do it quickly". I've already passed more time in debate
>over that issue in the last few days than preparing the proper
>PubSubj TC work (meeting today). That's exactly the kind of
>consequences you get by getting out of focus, and that I don't want
>to see the TC work get into.
>
>That's why I propose that the editors of the spec propose publicly
>here a specific process for the transition. They are after all
>responsible of that document, no?
>
>Regards
>
>Bernard
>
>
>Bernard Vatant - Consultant
>bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content"
>www.mondeca.com
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request