[sc34wg3] to advance Topic Maps

[Robert Barta]

> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> >First, I should make it clear that there are certain practical
> >constraints here. The first is that all further progress on topic maps
> >(except for progress on the RM) hinges on the SAM. 


On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 01:34:13PM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Strongly disagree.
....
> Topic maps certainly do need a constraint language, query language, 
> etc., but none of those can develop without resolving the more 
> fundamental need for a consensus on the basis for those languages.
> ...

Patrick, Lars,

As one of those experimenting with TM*L languages for ontology
engineering I would tend think that neither model is, uhm,
particularily helpful :-) Both are concentrating on factual maps and
their abstract representation. So their importance is mainly for
providing a common, technical denominator for the set of standards.

To me it sounds like people arguing about the basement of a house, how
deep (one storey, two), how broad, etc. without really having a full
plan plus static computations whether this will be a one-family house
or the biggest residential tower on this planet (they build it now on
the Gold Coast, that is).

Adding generic functionality for querying, constraining and updating
needs, IMHO, a much more formal, disciplined and holistic
coverage. The RDF community has already gone partly through this
cycle. We can hopefully fasttrack some of this development.

In this, shady light it seems that the SAM is the lesser of the two
evils; simply because it is doing less evil :-)

my 2.0E-02 AUDs

\rho