RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] formal syntax

["Bandholtz, Thomas" <Thomas.Bandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com>]

Title: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] formal syntax

> > To be short:
> > As far as I can see, every successful standard owns one (1)
> formal syntax.
> > See DTD, Schema, SOAP, XSL, whatsoever.
>
> Agreed so far

Great.

> > I think we should concentrate on developing *one final*
> syntax for topic maps ...
>
> Might be, although I feel more happy with XTM 1.0 that many
> people seem to be, and in fact
> the more I use it, the more I like it.

OK. If we believe in XTM, we should claim this to be the one formal syntax.
Or we could say: this still is an open issue.
Somehow it is ridiculous to say: We have a standard, but we do not have a formal syntax.
But we have two interchange formats :-)

> > ... and we should also use it for PSI, as PS are topics.
>
> No we should not, because they are not. That is the point we
> can't agree upon obviously.

No problem. We are all intelligent grown ups. So we should be able to handle that people have different points of view now and then. And I feel that we are able. Either we agree on something, may be even on something both of us do not know yet, or we do never agree. So, as it looks so far, I would be a minority, and I am a democrat, if it comes to a vote.

> Well ... I'm definitely feeling like we are speaking past
> each other here.

You may be right. Looks like we still do not understand each other's thinking in some point. I am always eager to learn.

> Hope we'll get
> to something more constructive F2F in Barcelona next week ...

So do I. I think that my constribution is very constructive. Sorry if this is somehow disturbing, from your point of view. This is not what I want. I really believe what I say. And I respect your opinion, though I think you are wrong. But, who knows?

Cheers, Thomas