[sc34wg3] to advance Topic Maps

[Steve Pepper]

Thanks for bringing us back to substantive matters, Sam. Allow me
to quote your long posting in extensio (omitting only material quoted
by you).

At 19:45 12.04.2003 -0400, Sam Hunting wrote:
>I think the discussion under this subejct line has diverged from
>substantive matters, and so I would like to bring it back.
>...
>Note the word "urgent."
>...
>So, if there's a sense of urgency, this should be disclosed ASAP. Yes?
>...
>So, if there's a sense of urgency, this should be rectified ASAP. Yes?
>...
>So, if there's a sense of urgency, this should be rectified ASAP. Yes?
>...
>So, if there's a sense of urgency, this should be disclosed ASAP. Yes?
>...
>So, if there's a sense of urgency, this should be disclosed ASAP. Yes?
>...
>So, if there's a sense of urgency, these checklists should be evaluated
>ASAP. Yes? (How hard can this be?)
>...
>Since the TMM (Topic Maps Model) is designed to support TMAs (Topic Map
>Applications) like the SAM, and not to replace it or compete with it,
>this should not be too hard to do....

I would rather put it like this:

   *If* the Reference Model really supports Topic Maps Applications
   like the SAM, this should not be too hard to do.

I agree. This task was assigned to Steve Newcomb and Michel Biezunski
in Dec 2001 (see http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0278.htm).
It is a little ironic that these are the two people now pressing for
the task to be completed:

   http://isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001373.html
   http://isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001385.html

Now, it may be that the task is rather more difficult than you think,
Sam. Or it may be that Steve N and Michel simply don't have time. (I
don't *think* they have forgotten.)

I would take on the task myself but, frankly, I don't feel I am very
well qualified. I don't understand the RM well enough, and I am not
sufficiently convinced of its utility to summon up the motivation.

Perhaps one of the self-appointed co-editors of the RM could do the
work for Steve and Michel (if it's not too hard)?

While you are at it, the thing that would *really* convince me to
support the RM work actively would be to see a SECOND mapping, from
some other TMA to the RM, and a demonstration of how the RM, in
conjunction with those two mappings, increases interoperability or
connectivity between the SAM and TMA#2. Because at the moment, I am
much more convinced by the arguments of Bernard and Graham that the
RM is actually incapable of doing what it claims.

>this should not be too hard to do....

Prove it!

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Ontopian
http://www.ontopia.net
DUMUS DELENDA EST