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

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

[Eric Freese:]
> 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.

We have a feeling -- call it a hope -- that we're all
going to discover more areas of violent agreement.

> 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.

Yes, that's our understanding, too.

> 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.

We don't think any of this has been decided, and, having
given and received entirely too many surprises lately,
we're unwilling to make any pronouncements of any kind.

What we *can* do is to say what *we* want, though.
Speaking ONLY for ourselves:

* We want TM "isness" to be defined, and for the
  definition to be both rigorous and useful for
  conformance testing of both topic maps and topic map
  applications, should anybody ever want to do that.
  Maybe the definition should take several forms, if
  only to demonstrate agnosticism with respect to all
  the modeling religions out there.  (We don't want to
  get involved in a modeling war, and topic maps are
  currently standing where many weapons are aimed -- at
  the very heart of both metadata and vocabularies,
  eek!  That can be very good, because people are
  watching.  That can be very uncomfortable, because
  they're watching through rangefinders and they have
  their fingers on triggers.  So, as a community, let's
  be careful, friendly, and even-handed, and let's make
  no sudden or threatening moves.)

* We want TM "isness" to turn out to be both low-level
  (t-nodes, etc.) and high-level (topic
  characteristics), with absolute clarity about how the
  levels map to one another, and with both perspectives
  on the "isness" to be fully explained in terms of
  each other.

* We want the 13250 DTD, including facets, to be
  explained in terms of the "isness".

* We want the XTM DTD to be explained in terms of the
  "isness."

* We want to upgrade the 13250 DTD so that it has
  subject constituters as well as subject indicators.

> 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.

We see your point, Eric.


Steve and Michel

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/