Re: [xtm-wg] From the chair of TopicMaps.Org

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

Hi--

I'm for federated global knowledge interchange. There are parts of this
letter that (I believe) forward that objective, and parts that don't.

For those who are inclined to fire off missives rapidly, please do me a
favor and read to the end. I'm not flaming here, or even playing my
usual role as a troll ;-)

First (alas) I want to throw in my $0.02 on the historical record,
since I was an associate editor for the DC deliverables, so I bear a
responsibility for the events that Eric and Steve are both describing.

[eric]
> > I ruled that a qualifying vote did not occur at the Dallas meeting
> > (not enough members present) or at any time prior to December 4 or 
> > at any time before the Paris meeting.

I will still go to the mat with you on this one Eric, for three
reasons:

First, Roberts classifies these procedural issues as rules breaches, to
which objections have to be "timely." If we start unravelling rules
breaches, we could undermine XTM all the way back to Swindon. Roberts
(11th, and current, edition) says that the reason for that objections
have to be timely is to protect the organization from such unravelling
-- which is EXACTLY what is happening here, is it not? (In Paris, I
raised this as a mere possibility -- now it is happening before our
eyes.)

Second, rapid publication is of the essence -- it's a requirement of
the normative portion of the XTM spec that it be "prepared quickly."
Given the timing in the bylaws for email votes, there was no way that
any such vote could have been taken before DC. Therefore, the ruling of
the cahir puts the editors in a retrospective double-bind. The
requirement for quick publication contradicts the requirement for a
vote.

However, third, rapid publication fulfilled the spirit of the bylaws.
The mission of TopicMaps.Org was greatly enhanced by the DC
deliverables -- we got traction. Does anyone seriously believe that a
draft release would have achieved this? Even if the 2/3 ruling is
correct, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 
 
[steve]
> let's ignore the procedural stuff, and get to the heart of the
matter.
> 
[steve]
> property related to topic maps must be given to the public *quickly*
> in order to maximize public benefit. 

Agreed. People, who do you want doing this work? There's an implicit
answer to that question in any counsel of delay.

[steve]
> I'm not sure that anyone other than the editorial team -- Michel, Sam
> Hunting, Murray Altheim, and I -- had even read the draft portions
> of the Spec, because not one substantive question was asked about 
> them.

Yes, that's the historical record. To be fair, the PM is not easy to
understand, and certainly more pedagogical work is required. It is a
powerful idea, but has only been tested by a few. 

I think we should be looking at the PM as a community and come to some
collective wisdom about it. The reason, Steve, that I regret some of
the tone of this missive -- though no one enjoys a brilliant polemic
more than I do! -- is that it may make that collective process harder.

Steve, I was going to say this to Daniel on the CM, but now I will say
it to you on the PM -- magpie-like, I picked up on a story about the
Academy awards: a professor had each student in his class pick the
winners, and then averaged the result. Surprise -- the average result
was much more accurate than any one individual.

The DTD is strong because many people have beaten on it -- the whole
class has voted and an average has been taken. The PM and the CM are (I
believe) not so strong because no real collective acceptance -- sorry
Daniel -- of them has taken place. People need to be sold...

What we should be doing is taking this opportunity to work on the PM
(and the CM) as a community as far as we can. Roberts Rules is there so
that people can work together without necessarily liking or even
trusting each other. That's why there ARE rules. In the same way,
TopicMaps.Org is probably not going to go away -- I at least have take
on responsibilities to it which I in good faith cannot simply abandon
-- and so, if there is to be federated global knowledge interchange, it
needs to work with you, and you with it (absent liking and trust, if it
comes to that).

[steve]
> Thus the whole Dallas meeting -- the
> meeting that authorized the December 4 deliverables -- was
> retroactively rendered inoperative [because of a proxy vote.]  

Steve, I think you are right on the facts, but I know you are wrong on
the law. Robert's Rules (11th edition) strongly discourages the use of
proxies, and we in XTM privilege face to face meetings. However, the
issue of timeliness of breach-of-rules objections is here again, in my
view, controlling.

[steve]
> (This ruling is particularly
> incomprehensible given the fact that the whole XTM Authoring Group
> stood in front of the XML 2000 plenary on December 4 saying, in
> effect, "Here are the Core Deliverables, here we stand united, and
> this is our mutual accomplishment.")

Yes, this is what I find so strange in the whole thing. We were all
together, there on the podium not once but twice -- and never was any
objection raised. Very strange. Why not call an ad hoc meeting to raise
the procedural question, if in fact the issue had any substantive
merit?

[steve]
> information means, the February 17 Spec prolongs the confusion, and
> refuses to address the heart of the matter.  Instead, it provides
> new, circular syntax-defined-in-terms-of-syntax "equivalences",
rather
> than any rigorous expression of the meaning of topic map information.

Steve, "rhetoric" is not a pejorative term with me, but calling
something not "rigorous" doesn't make it so. This is EXACTLY the sort
of powerful pedagogical and technical issue that the community should
be debating with fervor. 

[steve]
> with itself in the most basic aspects of a standard; Annex F is
> described as "informative" rather than "normative", but the
> Conformance Clause requires conformance to Annex F.  (And Annex F is
> where the "equivalences" are found.)

One to you, Steve -- this is a huge consistency issue which the editors
have to address. (I believe, though I can't swear to it, that I read
teh normative body of the spec first, and noticed that the conformance
clauses had not been changed, and then read Annex F a good deal later,
but did not go back -- for lack of time -- to review the normative
text.)

A diversion -- the solution here is not to label what is "informative"
"normative" and go on our way rejoicing. I budgeted my time, when no
longer an editor, this way:

            |
  stability |  
            +---
               normativeness

That is, what was not stable and not normative I gave less attention
than what was stable and normative. In fact, the only reason I voted
for the editorial plan decided on in Paris was precisely that the CM
and Annex F were informative. This can and should be translated as a
desire for community review (the community of which I am one member)
rather than my own individual review.

[steve]
>     that would do exactly that.  Maximizing confusion, both versions
>     of the Specification are labeled "1.0".

Yeah...

(Note: The DTD was
>     changed only in minor, error-correcting ways, and Michel and I
>     fully support those changes.  But the wholesale deletions of the
>     fundamental Published Subjects, and the Conformance Clause's
>     newfound allegiance to Annex F, are really radical changes.

Yeah...
 
> (3) The Charter was explicitly designed to support a "go-fast"
>     process, with broad executive authority granted to the
>     editors/chairs.  But in practice, the group actually follows a
>     "go-slow" process, in which it's not critically important for
>     participants to be prepared for technical work at each meeting,
>     and where meeting time can be dominated by discussions of
>     procedural issues, rather than by technical matters.

Yeah, and like now, too...

[eric]
> > if there are
> > perceived errors in the spec, I would very much appreciate it if
> > those errors were identified so that they can be resolved.

This indeed is the way forward.

[steve]
> "Editorial consistency" is the reason given for the deletion of the
> Published Subjects.  The truth is, however, that keeping the
Published
> Subjects would not have interfered in any way with the February 17
> version; they just would not have been explained.

True... Everything didn't need to be there -- we just needed to make
sure that additional PSIs were backward compatible.

[eric]
> The PSI list on December 4 Core document also was missing some very
> necessary PSIs including PSIs for "topic", "association", and
> "occurrence".  I don't think there is any debate as to whether these
> subjects are also required. So to say that the Dec. 4 deliverable
> was not subject to change is, in my view, an inaccurate statement.

[steve]
> You're right, Eric.  It is inaccurate, because the December 4
> deliverable made no such claim.  What the December 4 deliverable
> actually claims is much more sensible and appropriate:

> The contents of this XTM 1.0 Core Deliverables document, including
> the XTM 1.0 Document Type Definition (DTD), the XTM 1.0 Published
> Subject Indicators (PSIs), and the XTM 1.0 Conformance clause,
> represent portions of the XTM 1.0 Specification that are not subject
> to any future change that would invalidate any XTM document or XTM
> application that conforms to the syntactic and other constraints
> that the DTD, the PSIs, and the Conformance clause are intended to
> impose in order to guarantee reliable interchange of Web-based topic
> map information in XML.

> There's a very big difference between the above guarantee of
> dependability, and any claim that "the Dec. 4 deliverable was not
> subject to change".  I say again, the latter claim was never made.

Well, the core concepts were stable, yes? 

[steve]
> Adding more PSIs could not possibly invalidate any existing topic map
> or application.  Deleting them, however, would almost certainly
> invalidate any applications and topic maps that referenced those
PSIs.

Obviously. 

[steve]
[XTM] is not qualified for my support, however, and I do not support
it.

Steve, there are times when being right doesn't prevent a person from
being wrong. And there are times when winning an argument may mean
losing things that are more important than the argument.

This may be one of those times.

Make two assumptions: (1) that federated global knowledge interchange
is important, and (2) that XTM is not going to go away. (By your own
argument, it won't!). The only way forward on the most important goal
-- #1 -- is to work with the other people who are working toward the
goal. Among whom I number myself, and other XTMers and Topic Mappers
that I know and respect.

Concretely, what I think needs to happen is something like:

1. The spec on the TopicMaps.org site needs to be renumbered 1.1. To do
otherwise creates confusion in the marketplace and that doesn't serve
the goals of TopicMaps.Org.

2. I appeal the motion of the chair both on the validity of the Dallas
vote, and the lack of a prepublication vote, on the grounds that the
breach of rules objections were not timely. (I suggest that some such
formula, though not in Roberts, like "by acclamation" be employed.)
Someone will have to help me with the procedure here ... This will
serve to (re)legitimate the DC deliverables.

3. The topic maps community needs to have a conversation -- Jack Park's
word -- on the following topics, which should lead to a 1.2 deliverable
at some future date:

   a) the PSIs (do they need changes or additions?)
   b) the CM (what would it take to make the community feel it should
      be normative?)
   c) Annex F (what would it take to make the community feel it should
      be normative?)

4. The community is already having a discussion on the PM (Processing
Model. 

One of the reasons, Steve, that your letter, well, "concerns" me so
greatly is that this PM discussion is -- Ihope not "was" -- moving a
small corner of the world forward toward the goal, your goal, of
federated global knowledge interchange.

On a personal note, Steve, a little more understanding and patience for
what groups have to go through to cope with a paradigm shift, please.
Because you've climbed Everest without oxygen doesn't mean that the
rest of us can, or even want to.

I have to "correct" the record because I bear some responsibilty for
creating it -- but I would much rather be doing "real work" than
writing the mail I have had to write this evening.

S.





=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption!
Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide,
"Securing Your Web site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KVNB7A/e.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/