[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Steve Pepper]

At 17:38 30.12.2002 -0600, Steven R. Newcomb wrote:
>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.

I agree.

>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.)

This makes a lot of sense. "Application" was becoming
way overloaded. The SAM is definitely a model, not an
application, so referring to it as a TM Model rather than
a TM Application is much to be preferred.

>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".

It also lends itself to Yet Another Unpronouncible
Acronym (TMSM)!

Seriously, you do have a point and I will ponder it
well during the next few days.

>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.

Hmm. I think I already know that I don't. I'm with
Martin on this one:

At 08:07 31.12.2002 +0000, Martin Bryan wrote:
>If, as you claim
>
> >       * 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.
>
>then it seems that the response to
>
> > 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.
>
>must be that it is the Topic Map Metamodel. What else can you call something
>that is a "platform for the definition of TM Models"?

Exactly. This is in fact what Ann suggested in Baltimore, and
I think it makes a lot of sense. Michel's objection was that
'metamodel' doesn't have a good marketing karma, but I
would argue that precision has the highest marketing value.

In fact, Ann's full proposal was "Information Association
Metamodel". SRN turned this (consciously or not) into
"Information Aggregation Metamodel", which I think is a
very powerful marketing name.

In line with SRN's desire to have the trademark (TM) in
the name, we could go for the

   Topic Maps Information Aggregation Metamodel

normally abbreviated to the "Information Aggregation Model",
acronamed "IAM".[*]

Why is this a good marketing name? Because it is precise
in three ways. It says what it is (a metamodel), where it
belongs (topic maps), and what it's for (information
aggregation).

What's more, the "what it's for" part - quite amazingly,
and uniquely in the history of SC34, I think - connects
very intuitively with a real perceived business problem:
the need to be able to aggregate information.

>To me Topic Map Modelling Principles would be a guide to "How to write topic
>map models", not a set of rules that models can be built on.

I agree. Or even "Principles for Modelling Topic Maps"
(i.e., the noble art of Topic Map Ontology Design).

Steve

[*] "I think, therefore IAM." Or as the Romans used to say:
"Cogito, ergo SUM", where SUM obviously stands for "Standard
U.... Model". (Sorry, I forget what the "U" stands for. Help
me, someone.)


--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246