[sc34wg3] Roadmap to the topic map standards

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars Marius,

Overall +1 (minor comments below):

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

<snip>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   Roadmap to the topic map standards
>
> This document describes the plan for the further work on the topic map 
> standards by ISO SC34. The intention is that this document will evolve 
> into a part 0 to the new ISO 13250 standard that explains its structure.
>
<snip>

>
>     The present
>
> The current ISO 13250 only defines a number of technical topic map 
> terms as well as two interchange syntaxes, but it does not define the 
> structure of the model that these two syntaxes are intended to 
> represent. Neither does it clearly define the relationship between the 
> two syntaxes, and as there are some subtle differences between their 
> structures, this is important.
>
Rewrite concluding sentence to read: "Neither does it clearly define the 
relationship between the two syntaxes, and there are some subtle 
differences between them.

Deleting: "their structures, this is important." on the grounds that 
both define syntaxes and not structures, and "this is important" is 
superflous.

> So while the community is generally satisfied with the two syntaxes, 
> their specifications are in need of improvement on three counts:
>
>     * They are lacking in rigour.
>
Rewrite to read: They lack formal a formal model for topic maps.

Assuming that what you mean by "lacking in rigour" is the absence of a 
formal model. Or is your comment more generally on the coherence of 
expression in the standards?  "(L)acking in rigour" could be either one 
or both.

>    *
>
>
>     * They need to clearly relate the two syntaxes to one another.
>     * They do not provide suitable foundations for the TMQL and TMCL
>       standards.
>
Rewrite to read: "They do not provide the formal models required for 
TMQL and TMCL standards."

Note that I am assuming you will need both  the Reference Model and 
Standard Application Model to underlie TMQL and TMCL. Obviously the 
latter is of greater concern but theoretical work on TMQL/TMCL should 
refer back to the RM? (I suppose part of my concern is that the two 
models are consistent with each other, although one (RM) will be more 
abstract than the other (SAM).)


<snip>

> The new ISO 13250 will also include a model known as the Reference 
> Model, which is a more abstract graph model of topic maps. This model 
> is more conceptual than the SAM and subsumes all topic characteristics 
> <http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#def-topic-characteristic> into a 
> structure similar to topic associations. This model provides a 
> mechanism for explaining the relationships between different knowledge 
> representations. It also provides a model that is easier to extend 
> than the SAM. It is planned that the SAM part of the standard will 
> include a normative mapping of the SAM to the Reference Model.
>
Rewrite first sentence to read: "The new ISO 13250 will also include a 
model known as the Reference Model, which is a more abstract model of 
topic maps."

Not certain that we need to commit ourselves to a particular methodology 
of modeling, i.e., graph, for the Reference (or any other) Model. I am 
not saying there is any problem with using graphs for the modeling, but 
questioning the need to commit to any methodology as the "correct" one 
before a successful model has been constructed. It may well be the case 
that for explanatory purposes, the revised ISO 13250 may offer 
isomorphic versions of the Reference (and SAM) Models using more than 
one methodology.

> Below is shown a conceptual diagram of the relationships between the 
> different parts of the new ISO 13250, as well as TMQL and TMCL:
>
Suggestion: Rewrite as: "Below is shown a conceptual diagram of the 
relationship between the different part of the new ISO 13250:"

and then produce the diagram limited to ISO 13250.

Then write: "Below is shown a conceptual diagram of the relationships of 
ISO 13250 and TMQL and TMCL:"

and then insert diagram that shows the relationship of TMQL and TMCL to 
both HyTM and XTM. (The present diagram only showing a relationship to 
the SAM, which I realize implies a relationship to HyTM and XTM but only 
by implication. Or, is the difference because TMQL and TMCL will be 
defined in reference to the SAM model and not defined as syntax for 
application to HyTM and XTM?)

<snip>

Hope that everyone has reached home safe and sound after the very 
productive meetings in Barcelona! Look forward to similar meetings in 
Montreal!

Patrick

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