[sc34wg3] Re: Backwards Compatability WAS: Public Interest and ISO WAS: [topicmapmail] <mergeMap> questions

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Sam Hunting
| 
| OK. I can agree that issues with XTM shouldn't be raised for frivolous
| reasons.

There's a world of difference between issues and changes. Anyone
should feel free to raise issues at any time. It's the adoption of
changes that is controversial.

| But ISO tasked the editors of 13250 with the topic map core -- and I
| don't see how they can do their job without asking questions, and in
| public. (If the process took place in private, wouldn't you be one
| of the first to complain?) This doesn't undermine topic maps, it
| puts them on a firmer foundation.

Again, you're missing the point. The problem is not that questions are
being asked, but that fundamental changes are being advocated.
 
| So, what does "stability" mean in this context? Well, the apple cart
| could be "stable" if it were unmoving in a ditch by the side of the
| road. No one wants that. The apple cart could be "stable" if it were
| stuck in the middle of the road and not going anywhere. No one wants
| that. Or the apple cart could be "stable" if it were making steady
| progress down the road -- taking apples to a market, for example ;-)
| That's what I want, at least. 

You are misrepresenting the facts. We have a specification (XTM 1.0),
that specification is very clear on what should be done in the
particular case under discussion, some people propose that a new
specification should contradict it. It is a fact that this will
require just about every piece of topic map software there is to
change.

Representing this as stabilizing the apple cart is not accurate.

--Lars M.