Re: [xtm-wg] Correct use of published subjects

[Murray Altheim <murray.altheim@sun.com>]

Steve Pepper wrote:
[...]
> Boy, oh boy! I just can't believe it is possible to miscommunicate
> so thoroughly. Is it the Atlantic or what?

I don't think that this has anything to do with physical distance.

> Lars Marius raised a number of issues. I'm amazed that nobody has
> had a single substantive word to say about any of them. (Is this
> really the technical forum of the XTM working group?)

Well, I'm not amazed that amongst all the verbiage you missed the 
substantive words that I did provide. On the subject of xml:base, in 
response to Lars Marius, I wrote on Wed, 27 Jun 2001 at 02:02:05 -0700:
> For example, your understanding of xml:base is incorrect [1]. Some of
> your comments reflect a misunderstanding of the difference between
> a language and a language code (which is a profound difference). [...]

The thread has wandered quite afield from its subject. Since the two 
topic maps in question are my creation, and since the principal subject
at hand is my willingness or unwillingness to release them prior to
having a process to release them into, I can only take your request as 
yet another criticism of my unwillingness to go into detailed discussion
of the contents of the changes. Either that or you've not bothered to
read the point I've made in almost every single message, and reiterated
by several others. The discussion that needs occur should be part of the 
process of working through these issues that I am saving for a "reasoned, 
technical discussion" that I expect to happen under a recognized process. 
The more I go along in this forum without that, the more I realize that
absent a process there's little hope that any such activity would be 
productive here. This past week has not been productive. Why should I
believe a "technical" discussion would be moreso? I don't see "technical" 
responses to Steve and Michel's posting of their recent specs/DTDs. 

> Murray says that some of them are fixed already. Alas, we do not
> know which, or what the fixes were. Please, Murray, show us your
> latest version, so we don't waste time on non-issues. (You don't
> need to "publish" them; just make them available to the WG.)

I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of being bullied to release my 
work. Now I have two Ontopia employees demanding that I perform 
this stunt. I don't see that your request is any different than
Lars Marius'. Another thing that I wrote in that same message:
[...]
> And before I go, let me clear one more fallacy. There is *absolutely
> no danger* that the incorrectness of the country.xtm and language.xtm
> topic maps will cause a problem for topic maps being currently
> authored. The importance of these two topic maps is not their direct
> functionality as XTM documents, but the establishment of a set of
> Published Subject Indicators. The PSIs for "English" and "Kurdish" will
> stay the same in an update. These topic maps could have had empty <topic>
> elements with the same set of IDs and be functional for what people
> need for authoring. There is no rush to update the internals of these,
> except the rush you perceive. The updates for three character codes
> will be available following a decision by the TC, and if someone has
> a need for a language not currently available, a workaround until the
> update would be simple to accomplish. And we're not that far from
> Montreal.

Steve Pepper wrote:
> Once the non-issues are cleared away, let's have a reasoned,
> technical discussion about whatever is left, and try to keep
> personal feelings out of it.

I feel that in order to have a reasoned, technical discussion, one
must have either a legal system or some sense of understanding or
community between the participants, ie., a formal or informal process.
I have been a part of a theoretically formal process in this group 
that failed, and which I would not under any circumstances want to 
repeat. I am sure you remember. I don't see how functioning under no 
process at all in the current environment (personal, political, 
whatever) could be simply "technical." The OASIS process rules will
hopefully provide what we need to have the "reasoned, technical
discussion" you both want so badly. It is unlikely to occur here 
right now amongst the three of us.

As I mentioned previously, the set of PSIs established by the existing 
language.xtm and country.xtm work completely well as PSIs, even if there
are perceived errors in the topic map itself. There is no emergency here;
we can wait six weeks. The xml:base problem you cite is simply a matter 
of Lars Marius misunderstanding the xml:base specification, which BTW 
went to Recommendation (along with [XLink]; we need to update our 
references in the XTM spec) at the W3C today. Read the xml:base spec, 
it's pretty clear that you are correct, not he. If I remember correctly,
I confirmed our usage of xml:base with Eve Maler prior to incorporating 
it into the XTM DTD and the two topic maps. 

I prefer to have the remaining issues dealt with properly by the group, 
not by expecting the current climate on this issue to suddenly change 
to a "reasoned, technical" one.

Murray

> [1]  Go look at the xml:base specification again before telling everyone
>  things are wrong. The example following Section 3 is quite clear:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#syntax
(and now: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/#syntax )
[XLink] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

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/