Re: [xtm-wg] Fixing language.xtm and country.xtm

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Murray Altheim
| 
| As Nikita, Sam and I have been trying to state, and either you're
| not listening or you simply disagree, there is *no* organization or
| organizational structure that would allow us to have useful and
| productive work that resulted in a stable document.

I simply disagree. We don't need the organization to do the work, or
even to publish the results, though of course we should publish the
results through TopicMaps.Org.

Where is the Linux organization? Who could claim that they couldn't do
useful and productive work without an organization? And we are in the
lucky position that we will soon have an organization again, so
anything we do now can be made use of by that organization when it
comes back into existence.

| If were were to publish a replacement for a fundamental part of the
| XTM 1.0 spec and people were to begin using it, that would be an
| abuse of any remaining trust or public integrity we might have. 

That's not what I suggested. You, Murray Altheim, could publish an
alternative proposal on your own site, making it very clear that this
is nothing more than Murray's proposal to the Montreal meeting, and
that anyone relying on the PSI set before it is approved runs the risk
of it changing.

What possible problem could there be with that?

| Right now, it'd be a publication of "Murray, Lars Marius, and anyone
| who agreed." 

Almost, but not quite. It would be proposal from "Murray, Lars Marius,
and anyone who agreed." If the Montreal meeting then approves it, with
however many changes, it will be normative after Montreal.

| That's not productive.

That is very productive. That allows us to finish it in Montreal
rather than in Orlando.
 
| The fact that you suggest that people "in the know" could begin
| using the updated language.xtm and country.xtm topic maps is a
| strong indication that we should not make them available until such
| time as there is an organization that *can* approve their use. It's
| highly unlikely that they wouldn't be changed in some way during the
| TC process.

A PSI set is a very simple thing. We should be able to finish a
proposal that can go through the process in Montreal pretty quickly,
without having to do a rush job.

| Rushing this may be in your best interests, but I don't think it's in 
| the community's.

Oh, come on. How could it possibly hurt the community to finish this
set of PSIs in Montreal? And what would 'rushing' mean in this context?
This is such a simple job that it shouldn't be at all hard to do it
right in good time before Montreal.

| We need stability much more than we need a new topic map.

We will get the topic maps anyway. People doing real-world projects to
deadlines set by people who have never heard of topic maps will do
what they must.

--Lars M.


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/