[sc34wg3] to advance Topic Maps

[Mary Nishikawa]

>*Michel
>
>I think when you qualify the SAM as a "very robust piece of computer
>science"
>you are exactly right. And this is exactly the problem. I do not think that
>topic maps have anything to do with computer science.

If this is the case, then the Japan national body would be required to quit 
work in Sc34 right now.

Our obligation is to work in IT and to bring new technologies to the 
marketplace through the development of international standards to stimulate 
the Japanese economy.

Our sponsor is METI  The Ministry of Economics Trade and Industry.


>I think they aim to
>represent knowledge units (aka subjects) in the most interchangeable way
>possible.
>This is not something that has any relation with computer science. It has to
>do
>with "What do you mean when you say this?".

This is the philosophical aspect and is needed, but it is not directly 
applicable  to objectives that we have here in Japan, anyway, as specified 
by METI, actually.

I think we need to look at the actual objectives of individual national 
bodies that participate in the committee, and exactly what JTC1 ISO 
standards bodies are.

I would not want to put this in a report to METI that this is what our 
committee is about.


>And thanks Graham, because I
>think
>you have pointed out exactly what discussion we need to be having.
>
>On the computer science implementation side, I believe that the SAM is
>not far from as best as can be done FOR A CERTAIN KIND OF APPLICATION WHICH
>IS PRETTY WELL UNDERSTOOD, but is limited to what it is by nature. And I
>believe we can, and we must, do MORE than that. That's the discussion I want
>to have.

Of course we can. This is what an iterative process is all about.
Looking forward to discussing this with you Michel.

Cheers,
Mary