[sc34wg3] N0391-0394: New SAM/XTM documents

[Robert Barta]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 09:08:00AM -0400, Michel Biezunski wrote:
> I don't know what it means to have 2 models.
> I know what topic maps mean. That's different.
> And I don't want to go out on the market
> explaining: well, there are 2 models because
> we couldn't figure out how to agree within
> the group. Pick the one you prefer.
> 
> No, I won't do that. This is not a viable solution.
> I want to understand why topic maps are the way
> they are and how many layers (not models) there
> are, how they fit together, an....

Michel,

I can perfectly reproduce what you mean as I like this approach
to get a good understanding how things relate to each other.

What I have learnt, though, is that even if you come up with a 'Grand
Unified Theory of Topic Maps', some time later someone else will find
a more fundamental theory. And after that another.  You could play
this game for a while and it is interesting.

In an earlier post I mentioned that if we bring in ontological
engineering into TMs (currently, as they are now, they are completely
unsuitable for it, sorry to be so blunt), then both models, SAM and
TMM will not be able to host this.

Does TMM have a formalism for 'subsumption' and 'schema reasoning
consistency'?  Does it support reasoning (validation, not proof) at
all? What complexity does the underlying logic have? Is it PSPACE?
Without a minimal support of validation of schemas and theory behind
query engines,RDF/OWL is a too strong competitor, especially in the US
market, I would assume.

> solutions. And guess what, I want all of that
> to be interchangeable and interoperable. Pretty
> ambitious? Yes. Doable? Yes. Ready to fly? Don't
> think so.

I agree: Ambitious and not ready to fly. :-) I was at this point more
often than I would wish. :-)

I seriously doubt that the (strategic) market will hold a place for
TMs much longer than a few months if we cannot credibly signal
progress. The CTOs out there have no time x interest in overly-perfect
standards (they run Windows anyway!). They look at the dynamics (and
as a consultant you have to point this out as well).

We have the big advantage as the 'second-comer'. Let's not throw this
away.

\rho