RE: [xtm-wg] XTM-UCS Analysis

["Wrightson, Ann" <Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Need a wireless job?  Look here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9113/4/_/337252/_/969269768/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

"What's next?" is a good question. 

I agree with Patrick that extensive/comprehensive analyses have to be out of
scope in our timescale. 
I believe that the categorization of XTM usecases which is emerging is very
very useful; if we did no more as XTM-UCS that would be a good contribution.

I am very wary of taking any one usecase (or even a small set) forward into
say a functional analysis, because that would load the XTM process with a
specialized collection of precise requirements, which would probably serve
as extremely unhelpful "requirements bloat" on the overall outcome of the
XTM process. (eg IMHO the XML Query activity is suffering badly from this
problem.)

So, let's give due value to the simple categorization of XTM uses which we
now have, adding to those in my last email knowledge modelling and support
of knowledge management (thanks to Steve Pepper for pointing out I should
put this one in too). So here's a revised "XTM-UCS list" of usecase-based
requirements on XTM maps:

1. Navigating complex content: XTM supports supplementary structure and
information providing specific support for applications providing
navigation/access functionality

2. Topical organization: XTM supports supplementary structure and
information encoding ontologies, taxonomies, indexes etc. 

3. Knowledge modelling: XTM supports supplementary structure and information
providing specific support for knowledge management
 
4. XTM can "Interchangeably represent" (words from 13250) the structure &
information in (1) (2) and (3).

Now I'm going to be controversial, possibly:

I have considerable confidence, both from my participation in the abstract
modelling WG, and now further strengthened by the time I've spent with the
usecase-survey material, that if XTM meets the abstract/conceptual structure
which we already have, it will be adequate for uses 1,2,3.
Therefore, there is no point muddying the waters with further detailed
requirements in these areas - we have good reason to trust what has gone
before, including the wide-ranging discussions which fed into 13250. 
So, let UCS now stress to the rest of XTM that the sole remaining task is to
ensure that there is a well-designed, fit-for-purpose XML-technology
realization of the conceptual model - and let us also take care *not* to
skew the balance of the overall design by stressing any one specific use
above others.


Ann W.


To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com