[sc34wg3] Roadmap to the topic map standards

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars Marius,

Glad the comments were helpful. Suggested revision on the "rigour" 
wording below:

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Patrick Durusau
>| 
>| Overall +1 (minor comments below):
>
>Ah, good. :-)
> 
>
<snip>

>
>* Lars Marius Garshol
>|
>| 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.
> 
>* Patrick Durusau
>|
>| 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.
>
>Well, what I mean is that both specifications have large gray areas
>where it is anything but clear what happens. I don't think these areas
>are visible to those don't have to implement this stuff, but to us who
>do they are very troubling. So the problem is the lack of rigour in
>the sense that there are ambiguities that shouldn't be there, and the
>model is just the preferred fix to that problem.
>
>I *could* have written that they lack a formal model, but that would
>be confusing the fix with the problem, and I wanted it to be clear why
>we needed a model. 
> 
>* Lars Marius Garshol
>|
>|   * They do not provide suitable foundations for the TMQL and TMCL
>|     standards.
> 
>* Patrick Durusau
>|
>| Rewrite to read: "They do not provide the formal models required for
>| TMQL and TMCL standards."
>
>Again, this is mixing up the problem with its preferred solution. I
>realize that we may not want clarity here (as the situation is bad,
>and so honesty makes us look bad,) but there was a definite reason for
>choosing this wording.
>
>Input on what we prefer is welcome.
>
Hmmm, now I understand why the prose was vague. Could keep the "lack of 
rigour" and "suitable foundations" language or say something like:

"Implementation experience has given rise to differing opinions on parts 
of ISO 13250. One goal of this revision is remove any alleged 
ambiguities or other causes for such differing opinions."

Factually accurate to say there are differing opinions but suggested 
prose neither confirms nor denies the validity of any of the "differing 
opinions."

(Noting that differing opinions do not imply that ambiguities exist, 
just that there are differing opinions. Happens all the time in biblical 
studies, what is ambiguous to one scholar is clear and certain to 
another. Same text, differing views. Unlike ISO 13250, we don't have the 
opportunity to revise the prose to resolve the difference in opinion. 
;-) In the case of biblical studies, that is probably all for the best.)

Patrick

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