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

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Steve

I think you somehow missed my point. It has nothing to do with the standardisation process
by itself, which I fully agree with you is in its right place in ISO and follows there a
path that I am very happy with - no frustration with progress, nor impatience about things
not going fast enough - that's not my point at all.

I also agree completely with the respective roles that you point for ISO and OASIS in
topic maps development. I don't think there is any disagreement of anybody for that matter
on either side of the "house", as Jim calls it so well. And I fully agree that we need one
standard in one authoritative place. And that's exactly why my concern is to see that XTM
is so publicly visible and well advertised as part of www.topicmaps.org namespace *which
is no more a standardization place* ... and so difficult to find in ISO publication.

When I ask for updating, please understand that I don't speak about updating the
specification or technical annexes at all. I speak about updating all the non-technical
stuff concerning TopicMaps.Org entity, because it is no more an entity in charge of
anything, and what is published there about this entity is simply obsolete, and may lead
people to think exactly what you and me do not want to see: that the standardization is
still happening there! In fact we should not get rid of it, but make crystal clear that
the pages there are now no more than historical archives, and that the normative documents
are now to be found in ISO namespace (wherever that is).

So, what I would like to see on topicmaps.org home page is a clear message saying that ISO
is now in charge of all TM specification process, that XTM DTD is now part of ISO 13250,
along with a reference to a stable URI where ISO 13250 is published, including HyTM and
XTM in a single place. But there is an issue - What is the authority enabled to make that
decision now?

Bottom line: We have stressed in Orlando PubSubj TC meeting that there is no Published
Subject if the publisher is not defined, declared and authoritative. We have a full-scale
use-case. There are pending PSIs in www.topicmaps.org/xtm namespace. But are they really
Published Subjects? IMO no - because they have no current publisher. They have had one at
a time, when TopicMaps.Org was in charge. But it is no more. This namespace has an owner,
a technical host, a webmaster, an editor ... BTW all four different entities  ... but no
one of those is in position to pretend to be the publisher.

Hope you better understand my concern.

Bernard



----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>
À : "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc : "topicmaps-comments" <topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>;
<topicmapmail@infoloom.com>
Envoyé : mardi 5 mars 2002 21:22
Objet : Re: [topicmaps-comment] topicmaps.org namespace, and ISO 13250 XTM ( Re: referring
to a topic from outside a TM )


> 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
>
>