[xtm-wg] ANNOUNCE: www.topicmaps.net: New informative web site on topic maps

["Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>]

To the Topic Map Community:

I am happy to announce the availability of a new web site on topic
maps, called "topicmaps.net". This site will contain the current work
in progress on topic maps that Steve Newcomb and I are doing. A new
version of the Processing Model for XTM is available, and is now
called the "Topicmaps.net's Processing Model".

I have resigned from TopicMaps.Org as well as from the XTM Authoring
Group (together with Steve Newcomb). It is most important to me that
the topic maps community understand why I have done so. The following
circumstances have contributed to my decision:

- I have been able, as co-chair, to lead the work in the XTM Authoring
  Group until the Core Deliverables (XTM 1.0) were published, as
  planned, on December 4, 2000 at the XML 2000 Conference in
  Washington. I have been publicly announcing the release of version
  1.0, committing to the fact that the DTD was stable, as were the
  published subject indicators and the conformance clause.

- At the January Meeting of the XTM Authoring Group, there were
  disagreements coming from the Group and Steve and I were denied
  authority to continue the work as editors, in a normal way. Any
  change that we would ever want to introduce for the sake of
  consistency had to be submitted to the group for vote. Since this
  process was going to delay the work of the group, I have preferred
  resigning as editor in favor of those who were able to perform this
  task with more authority. To me, the most important was to have the
  specification be published as quickly as possible, while the windows
  of opportunity were still open.

- My resignation had an unexpected result that the process went
  quicker and the work for publishing the full version of XTM 1.0 was
  completed. The new editors have worked very hard to
  make it possible. The decision to transfer the editorship to a new
  team should therefore be considered positive in all respects.

- Unfortunately, several errors appear to have been made. The names of
  the original editors and co-editors have been replaced by the names
  of the newly appointed editors, causing confusion among the
  community. The published subject indicator list which was announced
  in December as dependable, and not subject to changes that might
  cause referencing documents to lose their value was shortened and
  most of them were removed. The Processing Model, published as a draft
  as part of the December 4 deliverables, was removed and replaced by
  an annex F, "Processing Requirements", which was incompatible and is
  judged misleading by the previous editors, because it emphasizes
  syntactical aspects without telling anything about the actual
  meaning of the specification and how applications are supposed to
  understand it. Furthermore, annex F is presented as "informative",
  while the conformance clause has been changed in such a way as to
  require all XTM applications and topic maps to conform to annex F.

  I decided to resign altogether when I learned that a plan had been
  put in motion whereby the processing model for the XTM syntax would
  not be developed independently by the XTM group, but rather by an
  ISO-based group, under ISO rules, beginning with a requirements
  analysis and ending at some indefinite future date with an ISO
  standard query language for topic maps. My understanding of the
  mission of the XTM group was inconsistent with this plan: to publish
  a Web-oriented specification for topic maps, and to do it more
  quickly than any other standardization process could do it, mostly
  by relying heavily on work already done over the past several
  years.

  All these factors prevented me from having any clear vision on how
  to go further. Topic Maps have been receiving quite a bit of
  interest lately and there is a strong desire to harmonize with the
  W3C's RDF recommendation. I remain convinced that if all people
  involved in the process recognize the interest of agreeing on a
  single way of understanding of what an interchangeable topic map
  really means (this might take some time), all opinions should be
  expressed. Steve Newcomb and I are continuing to contribute the
  discussion in several ways. We are proposing a graph-based
  processing model (see http://www.topicmaps.net) a study on RDF and
  Topic Maps, and other relevant work. 

  Although the current situation is far from ideal, it can also be
  interpreted as a sign of good health that many initiatives, coming
  from different people, are out there, everybody trying to convince
  others of the interest of his/her approach to topic maps. The
  discussions I have been having recently make me optimistic about a
  positive outcome. It looks like there are many people who are
  looking for improving consistency between the various approaches.

  We are not claiming, for now, that there is any official
  status to the ideas or materials we are publishing at
  http://www.topicmaps.net. 

  I intend to continue participating in the discussion.


  Michel

==========================================
Michel Biezunski, InfoLoom
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Email: mb@infoloom.com  Web: www.infoloom.com
========================================== 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/n4HqaC/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/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/