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

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

[Steve Pepper:]
> There are several factors that could lead to a perception of
> instability.  One would be if the spec were to change repeatedly
> (Michel's "ever moving"); another would be if the process by which
> the spec has been created were not to inspire confidence.

> I am worried that the publication of the Core Deliverables document
> might be in breach of TopicMaps.Org's charter, which states:

>     5.1.2. XTM Approval
>     Formal adoption and all revisions to XTM shall require a two-thirds
>     majority vote of the Participating Members.

> The participating members as a whole were NOT given the opportunity to
> vote on this document. The only vote that took place was one in Dallas
> which authorized the editors to complete the spec based on the
> consensus that seemed to have been achieved on Sunday Nov. 12th between
> the modelling group and the syntax group.

You can quit worrying about it, Steve.  The vote to which you refer
*was* a two-thirds majority.  The vote authorized the editors to do
what was necessary to publish the Core Deliverables in time for XML
2000.  (Which we succeeded in doing, by the skin of our teeth.)

> Despite heroic efforts, the editing team (the Gang of Four: S&M&M&S)
> were not able to complete the spec. Not only that, they also discovered
> what they felt were a number of serious bugs in the results of the
> Dallas meeting, and made extensive revisions to the DTD accordingly.

Was the DTD adjusted as the editors deemed appropriate and necessary,
in accordance with the authority granted to the editors?  Yes.  Were
the changes "extensive"?  No, I certainly wouldn't characterize the
changes in that way.  On the contrary, in fact.  Opinions may differ
about this; I accept that.  But the fact remains that the editors
did what they thought appropriate and necessary, no more and no less.

Why, may I ask, are the editors, who worked so hard to do exactly what
they were asked to do, by a formal, two-thirds majority vote of the
Authoring Group, now being characterized as a "Gang of Four", just for
actually doing it?  It gives me the feeling that some would have
preferred that we had failed.  I hope that's not the case, but I've
seen that kind of thing before, and it wouldn't surprise me.

> Unfortunately we still only have incomplete minutes from the Dallas
> meeting, and they do not record *any* of the many formal decisions
> that were taken regarding the syntax. 

Perhaps that's because the people who would normally have prepared the
minutes were charged with a more urgent task by a two-thirds majority
vote of the entire Authoring Group.

Steve, your message seems to focus on "reasons" why the public
commitments that have been made by the Authoring Group should be
abrogated.

First of all, I'm not completely sure why you're doing this.  Perhaps
you are just trying to clear the air, by bringing the innuendi of
others into the sunlight.  If so, I hope your plan is working, and
that this note is helpful.  I'm trying hard to shed a lot of light,
here.

Secondly, I know of no technical reason why the Core Deliverables
cannot stand, just as they are.  Indeed, they look quite robust to me.
Fifteen years of work in international standards have taught me that
standards are not perfect, and they are not works of art.  They are
merely records of what was agreed.  If you are lucky enough to have
the very best people working together on a standard, which we do, the
result can be quite serviceable.  What we have done, and are doing, is
serviceable, and then some.

Of course, there are things in the DTD that I, too, would have
preferred to be different, primarily for stylistic/artistic reasons.
But they can no longer be changed without casting grave doubt on the
integrity of the whole XTM enterprise.  And integrity is the whole
game, here.  We must do what we have said we will do, or all is lost.
If, having publicly committed ourselves to our own work, we give
ourselves permission to abrogate that commitment, we cannot expect
others to make the commitments that are essential to the success of
our Specification.  We must "eat our own dog food", as the coarse
Silicon Valley expression goes.

> (For example, a vote was taken on whether or not to have <baseName>
> as a subelement of <occurrence>.  The decision was no, but all the
> same it's there in the version of the DTD in the Core
> Deliverables. There are a number of such examples.)

> It is my feeling that the revisions made between Nov 12 and Dec 4
> (the date of the Core Deliverables document) are so extensive and so
> little discussed in the AG as a whole, that they go beyond the
> mandate that was given in Dallas.

Everyone who is disgruntled with the results of the editors' work
should bring a list of their disgruntlements to the Paris meeting, so
that the ritual crucifixion of the editors can be held with all due
process, ceremony, and comprehensiveness.  Personally, I would prefer
to be crucified as quickly as possible, so we can move on to more
productive business before the meeting is over.

> Several comments on this mailing list during the last couple of
> weeks suggest that the syntax no longer accurately reflects the
> model.  If that really is the case, then we absolutely must fix the
> problems, even if that means changing the Dec 4 DTD in ways that are
> non- backwards compatible.

I'm convinced that all of this unhappiness is due to misunderstandings
and communications problems.  I think it would be productive to spend
some of the Paris meeting time clearing up these misunderstandings, so
that we can all be the same page and make rapid progress.  And we'd
better make *very* rapid progress, if we want XTM to have a
significant impact.

> Given that that document has not been formally approved, this really
> ought not be a problem.

I beg to differ.  It has been formally approved, in full satisfaction
of the Charter, and the approval is a matter of record.  If you
insist, when we get together in Paris, we'll count the votes that were
voted, and compare the total with the total number of eligible voters.
The arithmetic is not complicated, and the records are quite clear.

But I really think we could use the Paris meeting time far more
productively by developing a set of editing instructions that will
take the Spec the rest of the way home as rapidly as possible.
(Unless, of course, we can no longer put together a two-thirds majority
to go forward.  In that case, the AG is as dead as a fish-market
mackerel, and, like an unwanted house guest, it will begin to stink
within three days.)

Every individual Participating Member potentially has the power to
prevent the Spec from being completed (or from being completed
quickly, which amounts to the same thing).  We should all consider the
question that Michael Sperberg-McQueen has asked so eloquently: "Do
you want a standard, or do you want *your* standard?"  If you insist
on having *your* standard, there probably will be *no* standard.  A
standard is usually remarkable, just by its very existence.  A *good*
standard is a minor miracle and a joy to behold.  And we're almost
there.  Let's not stop now, just so we can see what procedural
difficulties we can ensnare ourselves in.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

405 Flagler Court
Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA

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

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