[sc34wg3] Re: Montreal meeting recommendations

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steve Pepper
|
| I would like to ask the four editors mentioned (Steve, Michel, Lars
| Marius, and Graham) for their suggestions as to how we should
| proceed.

Since nobody else seems eager to do so, I'll bite.

I think the very first thing we must do is to flesh out the action
plan a bit more. The meeting recommendations give some directions, but
nowhere near enough. The way to solve this, IMHO, is to create a
requirements document, and Graham and I will create one for our model.
This should also cover its interaction with the PMTM4-derived model.

Some of the main questions we need to have answered right away are:

 - which model should the XTM and ISO 13250 serialization and
   deserialization be described in terms of?

 - how do we agree on (and document!) our common terminology?

 - how many documents should we maintain as part of this work?
   (I know of three candidates: infoset-requirements, infoset-model,
   and PMTM4-model. Are there more? Should there be fewer?)

 - what should the mapping between the two models look like, and which
   model document should contain it?

 - to what extent should the models go into descriptions of the
   meaning of topic map information? which of the models should do
   this?

 - what is the relationship to the XTM 1.0 and ISO 13250
   specifications to be? how much of these two specifications should
   be replaced by the new model-based ones?

 - which of the two models should TMCL and TMQL build on top of?

 - where should the models go, once they are complete? Are they ISO
   13250 2nd edition? Should they be a normative technical report?
   Or what?

Also, one question to SRN & MB that I personally have is: what is the
purpose of the core model? What are its goals? Why is it being written?
I know the PMTM4 document says something about this, but it's not
obvious that this text necessarily applies to the new situation.
Englightenment on this issue would be very much welcome.

--Lars M.