[sc34wg3] Thoughts on the RM

[Sam Hunting]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Steve Pepper wrote:

<slash>
> All the words give trouble. Or at least so many of them that a clause
> by clause review is pointless at this stage.

Yes -- the fact that some readers were willing to perform a clause by
clause review and others were not is evidence that the text is not yet
able to serve as a basis for consensus. That is why we need as much
commentary as possible in order to revise it.

> I am more concerned with the substance, of which I find there to be
> very little. Even more, I am concerned with the motivating factors for
> the substance. Until I understand what the RM is supposed to *do*,
> and why anybody would want to do whatever that is, I see no point in
> wordsmithing.

To be clear, the heart of your objection is that there is no "why."
(editorial and technical objections, if any, are subsidiary.) How would
you like the "why" expressed in terms of a deliverable? Part of the
standards text? Informally on this list? In terms of process (and the
limited time up to and in London, it would be helpful to know this.

> Believe it or not, I'm really not trying to be difficult.

My mantra: The only thing that matters is consensus on the text. 

> _______________________________________________
> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------