RE: [xtm-wg] core.xtm

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

Eric and al.,

The reason why only the DTD has been proposed to
ISO is because there is a consensus that this would work
and that having an international standard supporting it would
only help the topic map market to emerge.

I am strongly supporting Lars' statement that ISO should be
the only place where a topic map standard is developed, while
leaving all the application space to other initiatives such as the
ones which are proposed to go to OASIS.

There are plenty of things to be done at the application level
for topic maps: building the industry means developing vertical
applications, common published subject repositories, topic map
templates, etc. But these would work only if they rely on a
solid foundation, i.e., one standard that can be considered
as reference.

Look what's happening with XML: XML is a spec. developed by W3C
and OASIS is developing ebXML, docbook, and many other XML-based
applications. OASIS has not claimed, and I don't think it will, that they
are willing to maintain a version of XML which competes against W3C.
That would probably mean the end of the XML industry if something
like that happens.

It seems to me that if we want topic maps to succeed, we have to
understand that there is now space for various levels for developing topic
maps. The standard core is only one of these possible developments. The
application layers are another one. It seems to me that we all have a common
interest to make these things work together the best we can, and not trying
to oppose competing developments.

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
==========================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:larsga@garshol.priv.no]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 6:03 PM
> To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] core.xtm
>
>
>
> * Eric Freese
> |
> | I believe that extending 13250 to handle the explanation of XTM is
> | the long-term goal, but for the short term, only the DTD is being
> | added to 13250.  Something about ISO politics and process, I think.
>
> That is my understand as well. (I was at the SC34 meeting in Berlin.)
>
> | The current spec will be maintained by TopicMaps.Org (and possibily
> | OASIS) until the text of 13250 becomes fully descriptive of XTM
> | (assuming any ISO standard is fully descriptive ;-).
>
> I know, but I think TopicMaps.Org would do well to sit very still in
> the boat. If all this is going into ISO then TopicMaps.Org should IMHO
> not do any further work on it.
>
> --Lars M.
>
>
> 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/
>
>


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/