RE: [xtm-wg] Promotion of Conceptual Model

[Daniel Rivers-Moore <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>]

It was agreed in Dallas that I shall be drafting prose for the conceptual
model, that Steve Pepper will be drafting prose for the syntax, that there
will be worked examples for the syntax, that Steve Pepper and I will work
closely together, that our work will go to Sam Hunting for editing and
making it concise and if necessary clearer, and that Steve Newcomb and
Michel are the final editors.

The conceptual model is fundamental. The syntax is fundamental. The worked
examples are fundamental. We have to do it fast and right. They are all part
of the spec, if we can get them done in time, and if we can't, as Michel
says, the spec will be the best we can in practice achieve in the time
available.

Any shortocomings in the spec can be addressed in part by later
documentation, but please let's not start by admitting defeat. We know what
we've got to do. Let's just do it!

Daniel 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kal Ahmed [mailto:kal@ontopia.net]
Sent: 16 November 2000 10:37
To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Promotion of Conceptual Model


[Graham]
> > I think it is critical that the model be in the main part of the
> > spec. This,
> > as steve said, is the isness, the essence of what XTM is. It
> anambiguously
> > conveys what the syntax represents.
>
[Michel]
> We still need to get a clear prose explanation of the model, which fully
> expresses
> the "unambiguousness" and the exact relation with all pieces of
> the syntax.
> This is what we are expecting you to provide to us. The UML slides are not
> enough.
> We need more explanations, to make this available to a wider audience than
> the
> XTM group.
>

It is precisely the lack of prose for the conceptual model which would worry
me about the inclusion of the model in the main body of the specification.
Those of us that have been involved in this effort from the beginning know
that the conceptual model bears a very important relationship to the syntax
specification. But our job now is to publish to a wide audience who have had
no involvement in the development of the spec. If we have clear, unambiguous
**prose** to accompany the diagrams (preferably preceded with the words
"This is all much simpler than it looks..." :-) then the conceptual model
will play an important part in the specification. If the prose is not there
or if it is not clear enough, or the conceptual model is underspecified, it
may well serve to obfuscate the simplicity of topic maps.

Most XML specs 'suffer' from a lack of conceptual detail. But XML hackers
don't want conceptual detail. They want syntax and examples. The RDF spec
took the trouble of trying to outline its conceptual model. The
result...no-one except those involved in the development of the spec
understood that it was really that simple...it just *looked* Too Hard (tm).

I think all of this is just to echo Michel's

> We'll have to deal with the "self-explanatory" character of the syntax
> until we get this written down. We'll publish whatever we would have been
> able to get
> and review in 15 days from now.

With the addition of we should only publish what we get and review and
believe will be required for our audience.

Anyway, what is wrong with a separate Conceptual Model document ? It speaks
to a different audience and serves a different purpose and we (unlike ISO)
are not producing bound, saleable copy, so we don't have a commercial
requirement to bundle everything together.

Cheers,

Kal



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 -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/337252/_/974378039/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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