RE: [xtm-wg] [XTM-CMS] [XTM-SS] Point of discussion with Model

["Graham Moore" <gdm@stepuk.com>]

I think one of the key things to discuss is that in the model a topic IS NOT
a link  and that a topicoccurrence IS a link. There are other things to
discuss but I dont feel as though the two perceptions are that far apart.

Chris and I are willing and able to answer any questions about the model.

cheers

graham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sentto-1553146-734-973263592-gdm=stepuk.com@returns.onelist.com
> [mailto:sentto-1553146-734-973263592-gdm=stepuk.com@returns.on
> elist.com]
> On Behalf Of Chris Angus
> Sent: 03 November 2000 15:01
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] [XTM-CMS] Is there no data model?
>
>
> Lars
>
> Can I respond to your email as someone who has recently
> become involved with
> the process as an invited expert to the XTM-CMS subgroup.  Along with
> Matthew West (who also work for Shell) we have had a number
> of meetings with
> members of the conceptual group to participate on the
> production of the
> 'conceptual model' as part of the XTM effort.
>
> I agree pretty much with the core sentiment of your statement
> "To me, the
> data model seemed absolutely crucial, the interchange syntax
> merely useful
> and no doubt the rest will also be useful. However, as I see
> it, all else
> pales into insignificance compared with the data model.",
> particularly the
> first part of the statement.
>
> I think that for 'conceptual model' you should read
> 'conceptual data model'
> or 'abstract data model'.  Matthew and myself have been
> involved because of
> our background in data modelling and our interest and work in
> areas such as
> data and data model integration.
>
> The abstract data model is currently being refined and
> produced.  Following
> a number of meetings over the last two or three weeks Graham
> Moore is today
> producing a revised set of diagrams and I am planning to
> spend much of the
> weekend working on the accompanying words.  We hope to be
> circulating the
> revised model during the course of next week for review and
> discussion.
>
> You say "What further worries me is that the community does
> not seem to
> consider this very important. (Ref the TMQL discussion as one
> example.) In
> my opinion the community absolutely MUST make sure that we
> get an abstract
> data model with proper specification of important operations
> like merging."
>
> I agree.  I think that the people working on the model have
> refrained from
> participating in the discussions on TMQL, merging, etc.
> because it is more
> important to us at this point to complete the model so that
> we can then have
> sensible discussions on such issues.
>
> Chris Angus
> Home: +44 (0) 16977 41504
> SSI: +44 (0) 207 934 4960
> Fax: +44 (0) 16977 41666
> Chris.Angus@BTinternet.com or Chris.C.Angus@opc.shell.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
> To: <xtm-wg@egroups.com>
> Sent: 03 November 2000 12:46
> Subject: [xtm-wg] [XTM-CMS] Is there no data model?
>
>
> >
> > [Initial note: I have largely been standing outside the XTM process,
> > so it is quite possible that I have not gotten the story straight
> > here, and I know that.  If I haven't got it right, please tell me.]
> >
> >
> > As far as I understood, XTM was to produce an XML-based interchange
> > syntax, a data model and some other stuff.  To me, the data model
> > seemed absolutely crucial, the interchange syntax merely
> useful and no
> > doubt the rest will also be useful. However, as I see it, all else
> > pales into insignificance compared with the data model.
> >
> > It is now my impression that XTM _may_ produce a syntax
> specification
> > by December 1st, that it has a so-called conceptual model and that
> > there is no data model in sight at all. To be frank, this scares me!
> > We have one implied-but-very-inadequately-specified data
> model in ISO
> > 13250, and now it looks like we are going to have another
> in XTM 1.0.
> >
> > We have at least five different topic map implementations (tmproc,
> > TM4J, the Ontopia TME, the Empolis TME and the Mondeca TME) based on
> > these inadequately-specified data models, and there are even
> > discussions of new standards to be built on this very
> sand-like base.
> >
> > How can we properly assess and discuss the changes the XTM syntax
> > modifications do to the underlying model? How can we make sure that
> > the five (or more!) topic map engines implement the same model? How
> > can we make sure that applications built on top of the engines in
> > various installations will not make wildly conflicting assumptions?
> > Where is really the documentation of all the unspoken assumptions in
> > these various standards?
> >
> > What further worries me is that the community does not seem to
> > consider this very important. (Ref the TMQL discussion as one
> > example.) In my opinion the community absolutely MUST make sure that
> > we get an abstract data model with proper specification of important
> > operations like merging.
> >
> > All this syntax stuff is all very well, but it is the data
> model that
> > really matters and that just HAS (where is the 72pt purple blinking
> > text when you need it?) to be done, and done soon.
> >
> > So, what can be done? And how quickly?
> >
> > If it sounds like I'm panicking it's probably because I am.
> >
> > --Lars M.
> >
> >
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
> -------------------------~-~>
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/337252/_/973263592/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star
> Internet,
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
> For further information visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
>
>


________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet, 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. 
For further information visit:
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/337252/_/973586445/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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