[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [topicmapmail] RE: [xtm-wg] please let ISO define the "isness" of topic maps
Just speaking for the ISO bureaucracy, I'd say everybody's pretty much in agreement, and we don't need to worry much. It's going to take us a couple of months (now that we're all getting back to our places of business) to get the ISO ballots sent out and processed, but then we ought to have established a safe home for the DTD. We know that there's more work to do, such as covering the differences between what the XTM DTD represents and what's in the overall design in 13250. There are models to produce to get the "isness" well defined. The amount of work is significant. But there seems to be agreement on the direction, even if we don't know all the details yet. I take the current series of exchanges as a healthy sign. We're in transition. We've agreed to some things in principle, and now we're having to get ourselves moving to work out details. We're passing messages around, trying to reassure ourselves that it's all going to work out. I have confidence that we will make it work. Jim Mason James David Mason, Ph.D. Y-12 National Security Complex Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208 P.O. Box 2009 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8208 +1 865 574 6973 Chairman, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/ornlsc34oldhome.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Freese [SMTP:eric@isogen.com] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:25 PM > To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com; topicmapmail@infoloom.com > Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] please let ISO define the "isness" of topic > maps > > One of the real challenges of working with this talented group of people > is > that you really never know what word or nuance of a word is going to start > the next great debate. And the really great thing is that it looks as if > we > all violently agree. > > I, too, agree with Steve Newcomb that ISO is the appropriate place to > define > "isness". However as I understand it, the current plan (and please > provide > details if I'm incorrect on some of the points) is to publish only the XTM > DTD in the next update to the ISO standard, not any degree of explanation > of > the differences between the concepts in XTM and those in 13250. For > example, XTM has resources and subject indicators and several other things > that ISO currently doesn't; ISO has facets, XTM doesn't, but purports to > be > able to model the same types of information. Will that kind of > information > be added to the standard? I was led to believe that it wasn't at this > time. > > All I've been saying throughout this discussion is that until ISO does > fully > define the "isness" of XTM, the XTM spec cannot and should not go away, > warts and all. That being said, when 13250 fully describes XTM, the XTM > spec can move on to whatever afterlife specs go to, and I will wish it > well > on its way. > > <!-- **************************************************************** > Eric Freese Email: eric@isogen.com > Director - Professional Services - Midwest Voice: 651 636 9180 > ISOGEN International/DataChannel Fax: 651 636 9191 > 1611 West County Road B - Suite 204 WWW: www.isogen.com > St. Paul, MN 55113 www.datachannel.com > ***************************************************************** --> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@coolheads.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:53 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/ > _______________________________________________ topicmapmail mailing list topicmapmail@infoloom.com http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC