[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Patrick Durusau]

Tony,

Anthony B. Coates wrote:

>** Reply to message from "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com> on 30 Dec 2002
>17:38:49 -0600
>
>>So what should be the new name of the RM?  I'm hereby
>>proposing "TM Modeling Principles".  We'll "test drive"
>>this name in the next iteration of the RM, to see if
>>we like it.
>>
>
>Forgive me for saying this, but I think "TM Modeling Principles" undersells
>what it is.  I think it has a lot more substance than being just a set of
>principles.  I would suggest something along the lines of "TM Canonical
>Metamodel".
>
".....more substance than being just a set of principles."

Well, I certainly agree with that! Imagine someone underselling a work 
with a title like "Principia Mathematica." Just a set of principles for 
mathematics, should have called it: "Canonical Foundations for 
Mathematics Using Advanced Notation and Modern Analysis." ;-)

I don't dispute that the practice of piling words one upon the other is 
often used in an attempt to confer significance upon a work. What I 
would dispute is that a title can confer significance on a work that has 
none. (Pick your own example.) And when a work has significance, as I 
think the "TM Modeling Principles" does, it has no need of piling up 
words in the title. Particularly noise words like "Metamodel."

Personally I would like to see something like: TM Principles. That is 
partially due to my seeing principles, whether in topic map land or 
elsewhere, as underlying the expression of all that follows.

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu