Re: [xtm-wg] Status of Core Deliverables document

[Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>]

Kal Ahmed wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
[...]
> > As Sam stated, unless there is an outright error in the current
> > XTM 1.0 DTD,
> > I agree entirely that it should be considered fixed. The *point* of fixing
> > the DTD is to allow XTM-based technologies to begin to be developed. If
> > the DTD is not solid and undergoes further changes, two things happen:
> >
> >   1. there is no perceived stability to the core of the specification,
> >      and nobody will dare spend development time on a moving target. I
> >      usually call this the "Microsoft-syndrome," but it's a big problem
> >      in the software industry in general.
> 
> There is no point having something that is stable and wrong. And especially
> not if vendors then
> try and fix the 'problems' that they perceive in proprietary ways. We will
> have XTM <BLINK> tags and
> lose as much if not more market than if we had bitten the bullet early on.

I have yet to hear any argument that suggests to me that the XTM 1.0 DTD 
is in any way *wrong*. I have heard all sorts of requests for alterations
based on various ideas and features that aren't in the DTD, but following
many hours of discussions I believe the current DTD meets all requirements,
or can be used in correct ways to meet those requirements. 

We will have XTM <blink> tags if we don't solidify the DTD. This is 
precisely what happened with HTML (and I was there to watch). We can either
have another HTML or an IP here. Moving target or solid, what will it be?
 
[...]
> >   2. any investment already being made in the current XTM 1.0
> >      specification will be lost. And if not lost, we court turning away
> >      those who might consider investing.
> 
> How much investment do you think the time between XTM 1.0's debut in
> Washington and now do you think there has been ? If all of this year's
> investment has happened in the last two weeks, I guess I'm going to get
> fired. Seriously, the real investment is going to start over the next few
> months, so lets build that investment on a rock solid DTD.

Between the very much publicized release of the Core Deliverables spec in
Washington and the point when XTM were to stabilize and be *again* published
could be several months. I think the point I've made repeatedly that seems
to be lost is that NO STANDARD ever satisfies everyone involved. Standards
are by nature compromises. I'm not entirely happy with the current DTD
either, but it suffices for my needs. It almost seems that people are 
willing to sacrifice the success of this project for their own personal
beliefs in what it should be, forgetting that at no point will everyone 
agree on what it is. 

Luis stated that there are still several more layers of the Conceptual
Model to finish. Had there been a finished CM that demonstrably explained
(using that mathematical concept of 'closed' we were told about) the
structures inherent in topic maps, I'd be more inclined to believe there
might be something wrong with the syntax implementation. But I have little
faith that the entire Conceptual Model will be finished this Spring. Finished,
mind you, a Version 1.0. As the CM is fleshed out, will we continue to 
receive demands that the DTD again be changed? For how long will this go on?
 
> > We promised to deliver a specific set of deliverables in Dallas, and we
> > delivered on that promise. We held open the editorial process five days
> > longer than we originally had expected, and did not receive feedback on
> > some of the issues that have now been reopened in discussions here. I
> > note that these discussions have yet to settle into a single answer, even
> > among those promulgating the changes. Everyone has their opinions on what
> > should or should be XTM, and the opinions themselves evolve too. We as a
> 
> > group can continue to churn on this forever (as anyone who has done
> > standards work would agree), but at some point one delivers a version 1.0.
> > We have done that. What remains to be done in Paris is very clear to me,
> > and that does not include further modifications of the XTM DTD. There are
> > always possible "improvements" (in 2.0) but at this point any changes to
> > the core would only be damaging to the further success of XTM. The core
> > of the spec is finished, now we must finish documenting what it is we
> > have, warts and all.
> 
> No, we must discuss and fix any problems we agree on and then document.
> Otherwise we really do stray into Microsoft territory.

Well, as I said above, I find it extremely unlikely we will all agree
on what "errors" exist in the DTD. 

How do you suggest we keep separate the various heavy lobbying for
new features or simply a *different* syntax that might be expected in 
Paris from legitimate errors in the DTD? How will we keep our ears open
to real errors without altering the DTD simply to satisfy political or 
company needs? I've heard so much negative rhetoric already that I'm 
very skeptical about forward progress, if people aren't willing to
compromise, listen to others, and work together for the success of this
project, we will certainly kill it.

[...]
> I have no argument with the XML construct known as the DTD - its a truely
> masterful piece of work (Aside: this is praise from a man who can never
> remember the correct syntax for a CDATA section :-), nor do I have any
> issues with the structure of the documentation (though I have some quibbles
> re: the content). However I would much rather that we have a syntactically
> correct, well documented DTD which we all agree really is the best 1.0
> release we can put out.

I have no disagreement with that. I believe we already have a completely
functional DTD, and have spent an enormous amount of energy thinking about
it, both during and after its publication. I agree that we could certainly 
make changes (one could *always* make changes), and possibly even 
improvements, but I have yet to see anything remotely convincing that would
argue that these changes *must* be made, ie., that the DTD is in error. 

> I wouldn't even mind calling it 1.1

That would be precisely what our detractors would consider instability: 
version 1.0 is released, and a month or two later, version 1.1.

At some point we must exit "design mode" and get into "delivery mode". We
agreed on what were to be the deliverables for Washington and these were
completed. Absent bugs I still maintain that our best course forward is
to halt the continued calls for modifications and begin to work toward
finishing the specifications together, as a group. Paris will either be a
success for all of us, or completely kill this project. I am beginning to
believe there will be no middle ground. Part of what has made this a
success so far has been the feeling of community and shared goals in the 
AG. We hopefully can pull together at least one more time and deliver.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

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

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