[tm-pubsubj] Republication of XTM 1.0 under OASIS

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

(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