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

[Patrick Durusau]

Robert,

Robert Barta wrote:
<snip>

>  
>
>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.
>  
>
The work on the TMM is not a game although it is interesting. It an 
effort to make explicit what was only implied in the syntax of the 
original ISO 13250. Much of the research that supports your voiced need 
for subsumption (see below) is highly theoretical but necessary to get 
"practical" results.

<snip>

>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.
>  
>

The TMM supports the building of TMAs, which is where you would find 
support for 'subsumption' and 'schema reasoning consistence.' Can you 
say a bit more about what would be required to support either of those? 
Since in some circles the SAM is seen as a TMA it would be interesting 
to hear the specific places where you think the SAM falls short of 
supporting either one or both. I am interested in the problems with the 
SAM so needed adjustments can be made to the SAM but also in more 
general needs that TMAs need to meet.

<snip>

>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).
>  
>
You may be entirely correct or entirely incorrect but other than just 
hearing the words, I have no basis for evaluating your statements. I 
would (as would everyone else) like to see progress and adoption sooner 
rather than later but I have not seen any information that supports a 
particular time projection.

>We have the big advantage as the 'second-comer'. Let's not throw this
>away.
>  
>
Glad to hear we have a "big advantage" but not sure from your post what 
that is or how to capitalize on it. Can you say a few more words about this?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps