[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Patrick Durusau]

Tony,

Anthony B. Coates wrote:

>** Reply to message from Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu> on Tue, 31 Dec
>2002 07:18:01 -0500
>
>>I did not mean to imply that you were deliberately inflating the title 
>>but I don't see "TM Canonical Metamodel" as indicating (to me at least) 
>>anything meaningful about the contents. I am with you through "TM" and 
>>possibly "Canonical" (assuming some meaningful word followed it) but I 
>>get lost at "Metamodel." If you mean a model of a model, is it still not 
>>just a model? Have I added anything meaningful by appending "meta" to 
>>it? That is assuming that we don't already share a common view of some 
>>set of particular models in a discipline and also a common view of what 
>>a model that encompassed all those models would consist of, then in a 
>>particular context "metamodel" might be a meaningful term. But that 
>>presumes a shared understanding of the term, which I think is lacking in 
>>this case.
>>
>
>You do have me wondering now whether "metamodel" is really the best term.  That
>is to say, a "metamodel" is just a model of a model.  You define the family of
>possible structures using a model, and you describe the family of possible
>models using a metamodel.  I had been thinking of the RM as something you could
>use to model the SAM, which is itself a model.  That would make the RM a
>metamodel.  However, it can also be viewed as a lower-level model of TMs than
>XTM or the SAM provide.  I'm not sure how it is likely to be viewed/used in
>future.  So, comments (by e-mail or on the back of a postcard) are welcome as
>to whether the RM is a metamodel or not.
>
Let me use an example completely divorced from topic maps to see if I 
can clarify what I was attempting to say. This may or may not have any 
resemblance to your reply.

As a child I had a "model" of the Volkswagen Beetle that was made in 
Germany. The doors opened, but in terms of functions, that was the 
extent to which it "operated" like the car of which it was a model. More 
complex models of cars are possible and I assume there may even be 
models that have all the functions of the cars of which they are "models."

It would be possible to construct a "Model" for developing "models" of 
cars. The "Model" for "models" would specify things like the size ratio, 
what things had to operate (or even be present, like the engine), etc. 
The essential point being that the target (I hesitate to use "subject" 
for fear of more confusion) of the Model is not the same one as the 
"models" of cars. One has as its target a general class of things called 
"models of cars" and the other has as its target a particular car.

What I don't see (contrary to Lars' repeating "model use to construct 
other models") is what adding "meta" to "model" obtains in terms of 
information? A model is always a "model" of something and simply 
prepending a term borne of the physical arrangement of books some 
centuries after an author's death does not seem to me to add anything.

Leaving the keyboard for a while to do year end gathering of bits of 
paper for accounting/filing/insurance/tax purposes. Will catch up on any 
responses later today.


Patrick

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