[sc34wg3] Thoughts on the RM

[Michel Biezunski]

> *Michel Biezunski
> >I don't believe it either. Why? Because the Reference model
> >is gone. It's now called "Topic Maps Model". And I think
> >that there are good reason for this change of name. I may
> >even agree with you that this model should not be part
> >of ISO 13250. We should discuss instead whether it should not
> >*be* the new ISO 13250.
> 
> Michel, sorry, can you clarify this, I am not so sure what you 
> wish to discuss.
> 
> You are saying that you want to discuss whether the Topic Maps 
> Model should 
> *not*  be the new ISO 13250, or whether it should be?
> 
> If you are saying that it "should be* I will respectfully say 
> again, please 
> look at  the proposal for the new work item for ISO 13250 and the 
> ballot. I 
> think those documents are the basis for the agenda that we have 
> at the moment.

Mary,

Thanks for asking for clarification. 

I was raising the question that we might 
consider the TMM to be the new ISO 13250 
standard. (The *not* was the equivalent of 
"I am wondering if ...") This is a point 
I think will be worth to discuss and I 
recognize that we can have a productive 
discussion on this point only after we all 
get a full exposure to what the TMM brings. 

I wrote that because it looks to me that
the TMM model has the potential to become the 
mechanism that enables various kinds of
TM-based applications to coexist. If we 
can get a demonstration that this
works, then the TMM could become
the core of a renewed, more powerful, 
version of the TM standard. I am
excited about this new possibility that
seems to open. But I still need to understand
in more details how it works. And it looks
like I am not alone with this need.

This question seems to me so important 
that I am proposing to modify the agenda for the
meeting so that more time would be allocated
to understand the TMM. When we get mail from 
a member of the working group saying that he 
doesn't understand a document, we should fix 
that by allocating the time needed for 
keeping everybody on board so that everybody
understands fully what's going on. Once
we get that done, we'll feel much more
secure on deciding what to do with
the items currently on our agenda. This
includes designing what the new version of 
the Topic Maps standard will be.

Michel
===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michel Biezunski [mailto:Michel Biezunski@Fax Server]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:04 PM
> To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject: RE: [sc34wg3] Thoughts on the RM
> 
> 
> > *Michel Biezunski
> > >I don't believe it either. Why? Because the Reference model
> > >is gone. It's now called "Topic Maps Model". And I think
> > >that there are good reason for this change of name. I may
> > >even agree with you that this model should not be part
> > >of ISO 13250. We should discuss instead whether it should not
> > >*be* the new ISO 13250.
> > 
> > Michel, sorry, can you clarify this, I am not so sure what you 
> > wish to discuss.
> > 
> > You are saying that you want to discuss whether the Topic Maps 
> > Model should 
> > *not*  be the new ISO 13250, or whether it should be?
> > 
> > If you are saying that it "should be* I will respectfully say 
> > again, please 
> > look at  the proposal for the new work item for ISO 13250 and the 
> > ballot. I 
> > think those documents are the basis for the agenda that we have 
> > at the moment.
> 
> Mary,
> 
> Thanks for asking clarification. 
> 
> I was raising the question that we might 
> consider the TMM to be the new ISO 13250 
> standard. (The *not* was the equivalent of 
> "I am wondering if ...") This is a point 
> I think will be worth to discuss and I 
> recognize that we can have a productive 
> discussion on this point only after we all 
> get a full exposure to what the TMM brings. 
> 
> I wrote that because it looks to me that
> the TMM model has the potential to become the 
> mechanism that enables various kinds of
> TM-based applications to coexist. If we 
> can get a demonstration that this
> works, then the TMM could become
> the core of a renewed, more powerful, 
> version of the TM standard. I am
> excited about this new possibility that
> seems to open. But I still need to understand
> in more details how it works. And it looks
> like I am not alone with this need.
> 
> This question seems to me so important 
> that I am proposing to modify the agenda for the
> meeting so that more time would be allocated
> to understand the TMM. When we get mail from 
> a member of the working group saying that he 
> doesn't understand a document, we should fix 
> that by allocating the time needed for 
> keeping everybody on board so that everybody
> understands fully what's going on. Once
> we get that done, we'll feel much more
> secure on deciding what to do with
> the items currently on our agenda. This
> includes designing what the new version of 
> the Topic Maps standard will be.
> 
> Michel
> ===================================
> Michel Biezunski
> Coolheads Consulting
> 402 85th Street #5C
> Brooklyn, New York 11209
> Email:mb@coolheads.com
> Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
> Voice: (718) 921-0901
> ==================================
>