[sc34wg3] Re: integrating all TMAs

[Sam Hunting]

My .02 Euros --

One bottom line on Jan's post is that the RM is not meant to be an
alternative to or in opposition of the SAM. 

It would be a really bad thing for topic maps if recent friction on the
list has obscured this substantive technical point.

The RM is entirely designed to support the SAM (the chief among TMAs). If
the RM doesn't do that, it needs to. This is why a detailed,
clause-by-clause review of the RM text from the SAM perspective is so very
important as a means of reaching consensus.

Another way of making this point is that RM people are SAM people. We have
had to be. All on its own, the RM doesn't *do* anything. We need TMAs to
do that, and of necessity our first TMA has always had to be the SAM!

Usual qualifier about the SAM *document* may have issues of its own, using
the RM to reason about the SAM may cause concerns to be discovered, etc.,
etc., blah blah blah -- I can't figure out how to say this without
creating the perception of sarcasm, so I won't, and hope the bottom line
comes through...

> Hi Steve--
> 
> 
> Steve Pepper wrote:
> 
> > OK. Then I think I understand a lot more. In a sense,
> > what the RM is saying is:
> > 
> > * Here is a generic model of topics and assertions
> >    (and, most importantly, subject identification
> >    facilities) that can be used to express [pretty
> >    much] *any* kind of information.
> 
> Yes, exactly. And the TMA(s) that govern a particular
> instance of this generic representation are what holds
> all the semantics, all you need to know to make sense of
> that information.
> 
> > 
> > * The SAM is a specialization of this model that
> >    subclasses assertions as associations, occurrences,
> >    names and variants (and permits a special kind of
> >    assertion - called scope - to be made about those
> >    assertions).
> 
> I think you have it right, but I want to rephrase that in
> RM-speak to be sure. I'll do that later, have no time now.
> > 
> > * All information models that can be thought of in
> >    terms of topics and assertions[1] can be mapped to
> >    the RM and those mappings can be documented in such
> >    a way that humans can build applications that
> >    integrate[2] information conforming to many
> >    different models.
> 
> Yeah, that is the essence.
> 
> > 
> > Am I getting close? Is there anything else?
> 
> You are close.
> 
> > Steve
> > 
> > [1] Which may be all information models, I don't know
> >      yet.
> 
> I think all, it is *very* generic ;-)
> 
> > [2] The most important goal is such 'integration' is
> >      achievement of the collocation objective ("SLUO").
> 
> Yes. 
> 
> I'll come back on all this later
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> > --
> > Steve Pepper, Ontopian
> > http://www.ontopia.net
> > DUMUS DELENDUM EST
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sc34wg3 mailing list
> > sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> > http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> 
> 

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------