Re: [topicmaps-comment] topicmaps.org namespace,and ISO 13250 XTM ( Re: referring to a topic from outside a TM )

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

Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> writes:

> [expressions of well-justified frustration with the
> progress of Topic Maps standardization]

A widely-shared impatience about the work schedule for
TopicMaps.Org resulted in too-ambitious deadlines.
TopicMaps.Org self-destructed when there was no time to
develop the consensus necessary to resolve very
fundamental questions about requirements.

Accordingly, the community resorted to the ISO process,
which is slow but which (1) protects everyone's ability
to influence the outcome, and (2) provided a basis for
the restoration of comity in our community after a
painful period of brokenness.

The ISO process is working.  People are talking.  A
plan for progress has been adopted.  Everyone seems
optimistic that their ambitions for the standard will
be satisfied.  Everyone seems to be willing to
appreciate the senses in which their former opponents
were really right all along.  Everyone hopes that
further conflict, if any, will be productive rather
than destructive.

The reason why the TopicMaps.Org materials have not
been updated is that the community has pinned its hopes
on a single process -- the ISO process -- for the
development of the basic standard.  There is no one who
really cares about Topic Maps who believes that
multiple processes and multiple standards would be a
good thing.  "Updating" the TopicMaps.Org materials
would be the same as operating a second standardization
process -- one whose product would eventually and
inevitably conflict with the product of the ISO
process.  The existence of multiple "standards" for
Topic Maps would entail significant diminishment of the
credibility of the paradigm and of the name, "Topic
Maps".  As far as I know, there is nobody in the whole
community who desires multiple foundational Topic Maps
standards.

[Bernard:]
> Why don't we have a reference document, both approved
> by ISO JTC1/SC 34 and OASIS Topic Maps TCs - which
> are so far the only legal entities having succeeded
> to TopicMaps.Org, until to-be Member Section becomes
> a real entity - providing clearly the status of topic
> maps standard(s), including publishing legal
> authority, namespace, versioning, and the like ???

We want one standard, not many.  For obvious reasons,
ISO doesn't "approve" any documents that aren't ISO
standards.  ISO approval takes time, precisely because
such approval is meaningful.

Personally, I see OASIS as being extremely
well-positioned to develop and promulgate ontologies,
doctrines and conventions for the use of Topic Maps.
(All of the stuff to which users will most frequently
refer, in fact.)  OASIS is best positioned to play that
role on the basis of a foundational ISO standard.  I
suppose that, at least theoretically, OASIS could
declare itself to be the arbiter of foundational
matters that the ISO standard will be designed to
provide, but I don't think it would be in anyone's
interest for OASIS to do that.  I can't imagine how any
organization, including ISO and OASIS, can
realistically declare itself to be the legal authority
for *all* applications of Topic Maps, although I can
easily imagine any organization defining its own
applications and declaring itself the legal authority
for those applications.

> Bottom line: the status of www.topicmaps.org is
> something to be settled ASAP, so that the pages can
> be at least updated.

Although I deeply sympathize with your impatience, I
strongly disagree with you here.  The best and fastest
way forward is to support the ISO process, and to
simply let the TopicMaps.Org documents be part of the
historical record.  "Updating" anything other than the
standard itself will only cause additional delay and
damage to the cause.

-- 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