[sc34wg3] Editorial structure of N0396

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Patrick Durusau
|
| While I am glad to learn I have not strayed into advocating criminal
| acts, ;-),

:-)

I'm cutting all the stuff you wrote about whether or not we are
changing the plan. If someone has a proposal to make: make it. I'm not
going to spend any more time discussing whether or not their proposal
constitutes a change of plan.
 
| Sorry to disagree after so much harmony on the list but I can't
| agree that the "real work" is limited to TMCL and TMQL. That is in
| no way to diminish the importance of those parts, but as Steve
| Pepper remarked to me recently, it is very hard to build topic map
| software in the absence of a data model.

Sure, the data model is important, but it is much less important than
TMCL and TMQL from the marketing point of view.

| That the SAM is one answer to the need for a data model does not
| indicate to me that it is the only such answer or that data models
| for topic maps are now a closed issue.

Well, we've worked for a very long time now on that model and we have
resolved the issues as they came up. N0397 now contains proposals for
resolutions to the remaining issues, and I hope this allows us to
finish the thing off in London. (I fully expect to see some of the
proposals overturned, but I still hope the preparations will save us
time.)

The only issue I've seen anyone raise that is not on the list is the
issue of merging it with the RM. My position is that we cannot afford
the delay that would cause. You, I take it, disagree? Are there other
issues beyond that one that have not been raised, or which I have
failed to spot?

Unless there are it seems to me that either we attempt the merge or we
consider the SAM finished once the currently open issues are closed.
If anyone has a problem with that I'd very much like to hear what it
is.

| The near agreement (at least as I see it) between Steve Newcomb and
| Steve Pepper on them importance of accessing all the information
| about a topic from a single location in a topic map seems to me to
| be another bit of important work that needs attention.

If that means delaying the SAM and XTM: count me out.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| We've spent two whole years doing *nothing* except fix the bugs of
| HyTM and XTM. We need to move on.

* Patrick Durusau
|
| Sorry, I don't think it is fair to you to say that you have only
| been fixing bugs in HyTM and XTM for the last two years. You have
| made substantial advances on a number of fronts and while I may
| disagree with parts of it, there is no way I would say you have
| simply been fixing bugs.

It's an exaggeration, but essentially true.

| I think it is possible to "move on" as you say without burning
| bridges behind us as though our answers will be the same two years
| from now as they are today. 

How?

| I would certainly hope that some of our answers will change over
| time as experience is gained with implementations and building topic
| map instances. If they don't, well, I would say we have not been
| paying very close attention. Not seeking the perfect model and don't
| recall ever saying that I was looking for it. Do think we need to
| make sure that any model we have at hand is really the one we want
| before deciding to look no further.

People seem to have a real hard time accepting this, but TMCL and TMQL
have to build on the model. That means that delaying the model also
means delaying work on those.
 
| I will be in London from the morning of May 1st in case anyone wants
| to catch a cup of coffee (or the beverage of your choice) before the
| meetings begin.

We're arriving late in the evening, but if you're at the conference
hotel we can probably have a chat before bedtime.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >