[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Republication of XTM 1.0 under OASIS
(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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC