[xtm-wg] please let ISO define the "isness" of topic maps

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

[Eric Freese, in xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com:]
> The current spec will be maintained by TopicMaps.Org
> (and possibily OASIS) until the text of 13250 becomes
> fully descriptive of XTM

There should not be two base standards for topic maps.
There should be exactly one.

It makes sense to divide the work of applying and
popularizing topic maps between different
organizations, based on their differing strengths,
abilities, and intentions.

To me, it seems obvious that ISO is the best place to
establish the *foundation* of all topic maps standards
and technologies.  Please understand what I mean when I
say, "foundation".  Contrary to what you might think, a
DTD is not really foundational.  A DTD is merely one
way to *interchange* some "class of information".  The
class of information itself is the real foundation.
Topic maps are instances of a class of information.
There are already several DTDs for interchanging this
class of information.  What is needed now is a rigorous
standardized description of the class of information
that all these DTDs, and all future DTDs for topic
maps, are designed to interchange.

To me, it also seems obvious that ISO is *not* the best
place for arbitrary communities of interest to gather
in order to establish consensus about their own
specialized topic map DTDs, their own vocabularies
(sets of published subjects), application profiles,
topic map templates, etc.  OASIS, on the other hand, is
an organization that specializes in these kinds of
activities.

The XTM DTD is great.  The XTM Spec, however, as it is
currently written, invites people to think that it
defines the foundation of Topic Maps, even though it
doesn't really do that.  It demands that implementers
invent and/or assume certain things, because it doesn't
provide necessary guidance on how topic maps are to be
interpreted, while at the same time *appearing* to tell
implementers everything they need to know.  This
problem, if unchecked, will ultimately destroy the
credibility of topic maps, by preventing topic maps
from actually performing their role as a basis for
worldwide federation of knowledge resources.  In the
absence of rigorous implementation guidance,
implementations will create topic maps that will be
interpreted by other implementations, but the receiving
implementations will not interpret them in the way that
they were intended by their authors to be interpreted,
even though they may conform to the XTM DTD.  Worse,
topic maps will not reliably federate (merge) with
other topic maps in a predictable, economically viable,
maintainable way.  This disastrous outcome is
completely avoidable, but we have to make some choices
in order to avoid it.

The only way to fix the XTM Spec would be to start a
process (within some organization such as OASIS) whose
purpose would be to define the essential nature of
topic map information.  But we're already doing exactly
that in ISO, and ISO is the best place for that
particular, limited task.  My plea to everyone is:
"Please respect ISO as the appropriate locus for the
process of rigorously establishing the essential nature
of topic map information."  We simply can't afford to
divide the all-too-limited resources available for this
work between two or more competing efforts.

There is plenty of other work (far more work, in fact)
that cries out to be done, that will be enormously
influential and significant, and that will be FAR MORE
VISIBLE TO THE MASS MARKETS than a bunch of abstruse
instructions to implementers, appearing in a numbered
ISO standard without personal attributions, could ever
possibly be.  I hope OASIS is willing to shoulder at
least some of these other burdens, and I hope that the
OASIS and ISO processes will cooperate with each other,
accepting each others' dominance in their different
respective arenas.  If they can't do that, then I don't
think the topic maps paradigm will achieve its
potential.  

These are crucial moments.  There will be negative
consequences for everyone on this planet if we miss a
golden opportunity to provide significant technical
support for the federation of human knowledge.  Let's
(a) work together and (b) do it right.  To paraphrase
JFK's immortal exhortation: "Ask not what the
standardization of Topic Maps can do for you.  Ask what
*you* can do for the standardization of Topic Maps."

-Steve

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

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

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA

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/