[sc34wg3] to advance Topic Maps

[Michel Biezunski]

> >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?
> 
> As you have seen by now, I have attempted to answer
> this question in the meantime. If you need further
> clarification (in public or in private), please say
> so.

No you have not. You have only said you can't answer
it publicly. I wonder what the ISO process is about
unless making publicly available how technology
should work. I feel very uncomfortable with the
kind of answer you are giving.

I am not sure that we should not be required
as members of the ISO process to disclose all
the information we know about what's going on
as long as these are arguments that are brought
into the discussion.

The problem with your attitude is what would
prevent anyone to think that you are preventing
some of your competitors to gain access to
topic map standardization? If you would be
acting like that, you would not behave otherwise.


> No. I want to publish the SAM in order that those
> who sincerely wish to build conformant software can
> do so, and so that users have a chance of being
> able to tell which systems conform and which do not.

Sorry, suppose the secret information that you
can't speak about contains new requirements
for extended conformance. Why would the people
who are doing it be excluded from this process?

> Do you think these goals are unreasonable?

Yes, they are not appropriate in the context
of an ISO standard strategical discussion.

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
==================================