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

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Murray Altheim
| 
| 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.

What are you talking about here? The XTM 1.0 DTD is being added to the
ISO 13250 standard as an annex, so on the syntax level there should be
no problem at all. Or did you mean something else?

| 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.

What message was this?

In any case, Steve Newcomb is only an individual, however prominent
and important, and he is not making the decisions. In ISO the
committee makes the decisions, and the vendors are well-represented in
the committee, so I don't think you need worry that the ISO process
will be hijacked by people who will screw things up for implementors.
(Not that I would consider that a fair description of what SRN is
doing.) 

| ISO and ANSI committees are often seen as closed and isolated from
| industry, despite industry's involvement. If this ISO committee
| wants to counter that appearance, there should be some steps taken
| to open up their discussion.

I would be happy to see that, and have argued so since before the
creation of the SC34WG3 list. I came to accept its creation for
practical reasons, and experience has so far seemed to indicate that
it was a good move. I would not be sad to see discussion moving into a
place where anyone can post. (Though I am happy that the archives have
now been made publicly known.)

--Lars M.