[sc34wg3] Reading, commenting - and responding

[Sam Hunting]

> Thanks, Sam, this posting was very encouraging. (You should have more
> Tax Days :-) Reading, commenting - and *responding* directly to comments.
> That's what everyone should be doing.

You're welcome. BTW, one reason for the editorial changes from the
previous version of the "RM"[1] was precisely the detailed,
clause-by-clause responses to the text provided by members of the US and
the UK delegations. Sort of like being hit with a blast of ice water some
of it was, but in the end very salutary.

> At 14:23 14.04.2003 -0400, Sam Hunting wrote:
> >The substantive point I was trying, and failing, throgh my use of
> >repetitio, to make was this: it's reasonable to assume that consensus is
> >going to be achieved more rapidly if all parties read and commment on all
> >the work.
> >
> >I did this for the last version of the SAM; the work on this version is
> >not complete, but it is coming, as is the RM->SAM mapping.
> 
> I know Lars Marius and Graham found your comments on the last version of
> the SAM very useful so I look forward to your comments on the current
> version.

Hopefully soon -- it is being reviewed by our "Editor for Niceness," since
the war and its collateral effects has made me even snippier than usual. 

> Even more, I look forward to seeing the RM->SAM mapping, for the simple
> reason that I believe it *could* finally clear up a whole bunch of
> misunderstandings (about which, see a separate post in response to
> Patrick).
> 
> Even more than THAT, I would like to see TMA#2 and its mapping to the
> RM.[*] 

Re begging: That isn't necessary. This is something we have been keenly
aware of during the course of the "RM"s development. 

> It doesn't need to be complicated (in fact, the simpler it is, the
> better, probably). What it *should* be is something other than a mere
> subset of the SAM. Once that's on the table I think we might actually
> be able to arrive at a real consensus.

This has been our thinking. The checklists could be tested with a subset,
of course, which is useful, but best of all would be an "un-mere" subset.

> As I promised earlier, I do intend to study the RM in detail and provide
> comments. I've been waiting for sufficient bandwidth ... and I'm glad I
> did, because after yesterday I think I will read it with different eyes.
> (Once again, see my response to Patrick.)

Good.

> Finally, I would like to apologise for the sarcasm in my previous
> response to you.

I accept it.

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-editor:  ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps 
  Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org
  XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------