[sc34wg3] to advance Topic Maps

[Michel Biezunski]

Steve Pepper writes:

> 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

I am also pressing Steve Pepper instead of attributing
personal responsabilities to start considering applying
what ISO requires, i.e. searching for a consensus. It's
not by pushing forward some decision regardless of the
obvious absence of consensus that it produces that you
will be able to have all as a group make progress.

Steve, you have not yet answered the question I
asked you:

What is the nature of the incompatibilities that you
have mentioned between the software being produced
by companies claiming topic map compatibility and
the existing standard or the SAM? 

Can you please give more details?

What you say is there seems to be a lot of software 
being built out there claiming compatibility for 
topic maps. 

My understanding of what you want to do is to
publish the SAM in order to prevent most of them
to continue claiming compatibility for topic maps?

Is that your idea? 

If yes then where do we draw the line? Shouldn't
we be able to want to accept more topic maps products
even if built on different promises? Isn't it the
vocation of topic maps to be aggregating mechanisms?

This is really basic. We need to know where
we want to go as a committee.

Michel
===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================