[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steven R. Newcomb
| 
| It's confusing to call both the SAM and the RM "Models", because
| they're very different things; the term "Model" doesn't mean the
| same thing in both names.  It gives people the mistaken impression
| that they have to decide whether to use the "Standard" model or the
| "Reference" model -- that somehow the two things are in competition
| with each other, which is not only absurd, but also potentially
| self-defeating.

Well, they both are models, but we do use them in different ways, and
I agree that calling them both models does make it sound as if they
compete in a way that is strictly speaking not correct. If we can come
up with new names I think that is acceptable, though we do run the
risk of confusing people with all these name changes.
 
| I believe the RM needs this change.  I think the RM should be using
| the term "TM Model" instead of the term "TM Application", wherever
| that term appears.  (Which is everywhere in the RM.)

That is an idea. My immediate reaction is positive, though I'd like to
chew on it a bit before comitting.

One benefit is that we get rid of the overloading of the words
"ontology" and "application". So I do think it is better than the
current terminology.
 
| If, in Topic Maps Land, there is only a single definition for the
| term "TM Model," then it will be much easier to understand that:
| 
|       * The RM merely provides a platform or framework
|         for the definitions of TM Models, and it is not
|         itself in any sense a "TM Model", as we intend
|         that term to be understood.

In that case I think the suggestion that has been put forward, that
the RM really should be called a "metamodel" makes a lot of sense.
This is what a metamodel is. It would also make the RM/SAM
relationship clearer.

Of course, it would also create an expectation that the SAM actually
be represented using the RM, but in the mapping specification it will
be, so perhaps that will be enough to satisfy that expectation.
 
|       * Users really should demand conformance to the
|         Standard Model.  There is no competition
|         between different Models, at least not within
|         the realm of ISO Topic Maps standards.  There's
|         only one ISO Standard Model: the Standard one.
|         That's the one to use.
| 
|       * A TM Model (such as the Standard Model) is not
|         a piece of software.  Software can *implement*
|         a Model, but a Model is not software.

Again, I think this fits with the "metamodel"/"model".
 
| Personally, I'd really like to change the name of the SAM to "the
| Topic Maps Standard Model", or just "the Standard Model".  This name
| seems stronger, shorter, and more appropriate than the
| confusingly-qualified name, "Standard Application Model".
| ("Application" is the wrong word to be using, unless, when we say
| "Standard Application Model", we're talking about modelling a piece
| of software that's called the Standard Application.  Which we're
| not.)

Or we could just say "Topic Map Data Model". That's what it was meant
to be, and it certainly will make it clear that there's only one model
to deal with.
 
| 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.

I agree with the criticism others have put forward. This sounds like
guidelines for modelling topic maps more than what it really is. I
think "metamodel" is much more accurate.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >