[sc34wg3] N0391-0394: New SAM/XTM documents

12 Apr 2003 14:07:52 +0200

* Michel Biezunski
| 
| You don't say why. 

See paragraphs two and three:
  <URL: http://isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001376.html >

We decided we wanted two models, and documented our plan for how to
proceed in the roadmap, which was published just after Berlin. Are you
unhappy with that? If so, how?

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| You've had two years to do that.

* Michel Biezunski
|
| Not for the very last version. Not with all the
| open issues that have remained. 

The changes since it was first published in May 2001 are very small,
so I can think of no possible reason why you couldn't have raised your
issues with it before.

| Not will the issues that still remain and are being raised. 

What issues? Who has raised new issues? Where?

| You have authored a document. Fine. You now
| have to accept to have it reviewed until it's
| completely satisfying.

Then review it. It's been out for review for two years. I'm still
waiting for a review from you.

| It has to fit with the other pieces, and we need to see if the
| connection with the TMM works fine or not.  

We're waiting for SRN on that one, and he has yet to deliver. That
delay is holding up other work, and please don't try to pretend that
you don't know that.

| There are still open issues to be solved.

Which ones?

| The roadmap is fine, globally speaking. I am
| advocating for implementing it, i.e., making sure
| that all pieces that we already have work together
| as they should and we are not going to have some
| big problems in the future for having spent not
| enough time on those.

In that case I don't know what you want.

| Also you seem to ignore the fact that when the ISO process was
| initiated in 1996, the Topic Maps model was pretty much designed
| so it's even older than what you say.

That just reinforces my point, doesn't it? Instead of 7 years it's 8,
9, 10, or whatever.

| But let's put things back in perspective. The SAM is a bug-fixing
| document for XTM. My point is that we need to be sure that the
| bugs are actually fixed, and that there are no other new bugs
| introduced. That's all I am saying.

Well, go ahead and do it, then. How much longer do you want us to
wait before you can tell us what the problems are or what you will do
to identify them? 

| There will be standards out there that will be simpler, 
| more powerful, and more neutral than what you are proposing, 
| and will be therefore more attractive. What I am proposing is that 
| we as a group start designing these standards.

That's what we are doing, is it not? What I am saying is that what we
already have needs to be moved forwards while we at the same time
continue the future-proofing work.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >