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

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

I completely support Steve's position.

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: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@coolheads.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:53 PM
> To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com; topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] please let ISO define the "isness" of topic maps
>
>
> [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/
>
>


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/