Re: [tm-pubsubj] mixed feelings

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

The answers I got to that thread are globally optimistic, so maybe I worry too much.
Some reflexions between the lines of Lars Marius last answer.

*Lars Marius
> Why not try a different approach, like the one David Megginson used
> for SAX: start a thread for each issue, with a suitable pause between
> each thread?

That's why I had the issues numbered. I was maybe hoping someone else would start the
respective threads :))

> This divides the workload up into more manageable pieces and makes it
> easier for the hard-pressed TC members to contribute. Approaches that
> require large investments (in terms of time and energy) before giving
> any tangible result are much less likely to work.

Agreed

> These issues are hard, and will take some
> time to be resolved. Anyone who thinks otherwise is (IMHO) nursing a
> pleasant illusion. I don't think this is *too* hard, but it will take time.

That is the point. We had an agenda for deliverables, and clearly we've not met this
agenda so far. If we keep on piling issues that expand constantly our original scope, my
concern is not to be caught by this expansion and not being able to cope with it - even at
the speed of light.

> | I wonder if we've not been far too deep into the details of the
> | "what and how" without having a real agreement on "why and what
> | for". Those have been expressed in a too fuzzy way so far.
>
> Absolutely. I've been unhappy about the requirements document all
> along, believing it to be far too fuzzy around the edges, but felt it
> would be more productive to shut up and let the work continue.

You are aging, aren't you ;-)

> | (1) those who consider PSIs essentially as necessary logistics for
> | interoperability and wide-scale support for topic maps technology -
> | letting the use of PSIs outside TM universe as a secondary and minor
> | objective.
> |
> | (2) those who consider topic maps like maybe the reference early
> | users, but only one among many technologies that could use PSIs.
>
> Position (2) is actually a new thought to me. I didn't think anyone
> was holding it, so I'm surprised to see you "come out of the closet"
> in this way.

Maybe I've kept a low profile on it, but it's been in my mind from the very begining.
Thinking about it, I should keep it low anyway in this TC framework if we want to achieve
something in a reasonable time span. So I agree we stick to (1) - and eventually open a
new workspace for (2) when the time is ripe.

> Your phrasing of (1) overstates my personal version of that view, but
> I do think we should start with topic maps, and that the only
> concession to other technologies we should make is to take care not to
> make PSIs unusable to them.

OK. Let's keep on that track.

Bernard