RE: [xtm-wg] The Future of TopicMaps.Org

["Mason, James David (MXM) " <mxm@ornl.gov>]

I believe several of Murray's points are worthy of replies.

One of my greatest worries is that multiple development (as opposed to
support or marketing) groups lead to divergent results. 

There has been some good thinking from a variety of parties on models
associated with Topic Maps. Some of these have clearly been intended to
apply to all Topic Map varieties. Some may not have been so intended but did
not make their scopes clear. The good thinking deserves to be preserved in
some form. Any model that claims to include ISO/IEC13250 can be done only in
SC34, and I have reminded several of the parties engaged in modelmaking of
this. If some group were to undertake a model anywhere other than SC34-be it
in TM.org, OASIS, or the W3C-that group would run the risk of diverging from
the model efforts already beginning in SC34, and SC34 would certainly
disavow any such efforts as having nothing to do with Topic Maps. The XTM
effort was led by SC34 participants, with SC34 knowledge. SC34 does not
object to groups thinking up ideas or even modifications to SC34 standards,
so long as we know what is going on and see some relation to SC34 work. SC34
may even put its official stamp on such efforts-as we did for XML.

The prices that ISO has placed on paper documents are indeed absurd, and
SC34 has been leading the effort to get rid of those charges. But tell me,
folks out in Topic Map land, how many of you have actually bought a
document? Haven't most of you used something that started at
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0129.pdf, courtesy of the U.S.
taxpayers? Perhaps the editors have copies from some other source, but the
only printed copies I've ever seen of ISO/IEC 13250 came from that pdf file.

The majority of SC34 meetings are held at GCA conferences. Almost all the
rest of the work is done by correspondence.

Jim Mason


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Murray Altheim [SMTP:altheim@eng.sun.com]
> Sent:	Friday, April 20, 2001 04:22 p.m.
> To:	xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:	Re: [xtm-wg] The Future of TopicMaps.Org
> 
> 
> XTM never made claim to "represent the whole of the Topic Map universe,"
> merely one possible XML representation of it, arrived at by the community
> of interest. I don't see that piecemeal approval by ISO (such as merely
> the
> XTM DTD and not the whole XTM specification) would help matters much.
> While
> the work on XTM was done independently of ISO, it could go through an ISO 
> process or jointly via W3C just as any other joint development could. But
> is that what would serve the community best? I note that XML, RDF, and
> other
> specs have been quite successful without ISO standardization. I advocated
> at
> the beginning of the XTM effort that the emphasis be on moving Topic Maps
> into the Web community, and I take movement back into ISO as a step away
> from this direction. If all further work on XTM is done within ISO, I 
> believe its visibility and momentum in the Web community will vanish. I 
> don't think of this as a slur on ISO so much as a statement on the 
> exigencies of the Web community. I also believe that moving all further 
> work on XTM into W3C (at this time) would likely result the destruction
> of both the technology (it would get eaten) and its community (it would
> be dispersed).
> 
> While involvement via the ISUG certainly lowers the cost to involvement,
> I don't think cost (so long as it's not really prohibitively high) is 
> not the issue here. One of the costs you didn't mention is the cost of
> purchasing the standard we'd all create. Distribution of TopicMaps.Org,
> OASIS or W3C documents is free, not several hundred dollars as per ISO.
> 
> Perhaps my biggest objection is not so much any bias but merely the
> foreknowledge that should all further work on XTM be done in ISO, I'd
> simply not be involved, so I must admit a portion of my argument here
> is personal. I know if XTM ends up at OASIS I'll more likely be able to 
> attend meetings, and it seems a neutral-enough place that we could 
> possibly get back to what we all do best: work.
> 
> Murray
> 
> ..........................................................................
> .
> Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey
> <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
> XML Technology Center
> Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025
> 
>       the wood louse sits on a splinter and sings to the rising sap
>       ain't it awful how winter lingers in springtimes lap -- archy
> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/