Re: [topicmaps-comment] Cross-postings,definition of lists scopes,and community building.

[Murray Altheim <murray.altheim@sun.com>]

Bernard Vatant wrote:
[...]
> What I understand of the scopes of different lists:
> 
> -- sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> This list is for specification and standard technical debate. As a 
> matter of fact, I'm not on this list, and like Scott, did not know its 
> address before the recent spilling over. So I won't venture more on this
> field. But, from the way I understood the recent reorganization, all 
> technical debates we had in xtm-wg concerning syntax, data model, 
> query language ... should go there.

I'm curious to know what are the parameters of this list: who is welcome,
the exact scope of the discussion (according to the list maintainer), etc.
Like Bernard, while I was intimately involved in the creation of the
TopicMaps.Org XTM 1.0 Specification, I have never been invited nor even
informed of this list. It seems that SC34 WG3 is not interested in my
input, is no interested in widening the group performing the discussion,
has not thought of these issues, or what? I'm trying very hard not to
be insulted by not being included, as I would think any previous member
of TopicMaps.Org might be.

Whatever the reasons, this doesn't seem like a very community-oriented 
way for us all to conduct business. We have a small enough community 
that having so many list servers is not only confusing but counter-
productive to the general goal of building the community. I have since 
the beginning felt that the separation between the ISO and TopicMaps.Org
groups has been: the "important" work, and "everything else." This only 
tends to reinforce that feeling, and remember: I'm not a newcomer. How 
would they feel?

What I see happening (deliberate or not) is a schism between the ISO
definition of topic maps, and what the rest of the world will do with
them. I'm certain that this is not what the authors of the ISO spec
want to occur, but the actions that have been taken in the past few
months only reinforce this direction. In a recent message, Steve 
Newcomb discussed what he thought a minimum set of requirements would
be for a topic map engine. This certainly differs from the engines I've
seen, and from the work I've done. ISO and ANSI committees are often
seen as closed and isolated from industry, despite industry's involve-
ment. If this ISO committee wants to counter that appearance, there
should be some steps taken to open up their discussion. If this *isn't*
the desire of the ISO committee (ie., keep it small so they can move
more quickly, fewer people to deal with, etc.) then no action need be
taken -- the consequences either way have their own pros and cons. 

If as I've heard in person before, we're all welcome, then the lack of 
a welcome to all previous members of TopicMaps.Org is hard to understand.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                         <mailto:murray.altheim&#x40;sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu