[sc34wg3] Structuring the topic map standards

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Patrick Durusau
>| 
>| I think the names given various "parts" of the work on topic maps in
>| prior documents can be misleading. There was (is) little or no
>| agreement on the details of what goes with each name (the "devil
>| being in the details") so I would find it helpful if you could say
>| what you think the various parts you agree or disagree with will
>| contain and how they relate to other parts.
>
>Actually, this has been debated by SC34 WG3 several times, first in
>Berlin, and later in Orlando, and each time we documented our
>agreements in writing:
>
>  <URL: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0278.htm >
>  <URL: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm >
> 
>
To answer the question you pose later in your post, yes, I have read N0323.

The problem is that the "agreements in writing" do not represent a 
common understanding of the terms that were used. As evidence of this, I 
would point to the discussion prior to my post, by yourself and others, 
indicating that there is some lack of understanding on how to go 
forward. I thought your calls for "tell me specifically what is desired" 
are entirely appropriate and if heeded, will help solve the problem I 
just described.

Note that I am NOT saying that people did not agree to the language in 
N0323, but that they understood the language differently. Take a 
non-topic map example: I say, Let's meet in Washington for the next WG3 
meeting and everyone agrees to that language. Some of the parties think 
I meant Washington, D.C. Steve Newcomb on the other hand, being a 
resident of Dallas, thinks I meant Washington, Texas. Obviously a 
contrived example but it illustrates how people can use the same words 
and reach entirely different conclusions.

My posts were intended to be a first step in answering your call. I did 
not intend for them to be a global view of the entire family of topic 
map standard(s).

<snip>

>Do you want to change that in any way? If so, how? Do you want to have
>a debate about how to change them? If so, start it.
>
>My point of view has been consistent ever since the Berlin meeting and
>I have yet to see any reason to change it. I have also tried to
>explain it over and over again and have even done so in writing a
>number of times, most notably in N0323. It would be useful to know if
>you have read that before I repeat myself one more time.
>  
>
I am not trying to simply aggravate you and I realize that you are of 
the opinion you have explained it on a number of occassions.

Take for an example from N0323 and my post on the parts of the standard:

N0323 says (on the reference model, in part):

> The new ISO 13250 will also include a model known as the Reference 
> Model, which is a more abstract graph model of topic maps. In this 
> model, names and occurrence resources turn into nodes on the same 
> level as topics, and they are related to their topics using an 
> association-like structure of nodes and arcs. The result is a model 
> that uses fewer constructs than the SAM, and which can be extended 
> without changing the metamodel.
>
I said in my post:

> 1. Principles of topic maps: A standard, separate from any particular 
> model, of the underlying principles that comprise the topic map 
> paradigm. Noting that we should learn from Jim Mason's report of the 
> ODA experience and focus on making those principles explicit and not 
> allow notational rigor become the actual goal. Such a "principles of 
> topic maps" should provide a way to evaluate any particular model for 
> its adherence to the principles that make topic maps, well, topic maps.
>
> I see such "principles" as providing a means of distinguishing models 
> for topic maps from models for other things, as well as providing a 
> means to speak meaningfully about various aspects of topic map models. 

I read those as being substantially different and offered #1 as the 
starting point for a discussion of what is called in N0323 the Reference 
Model.

I am aware that it could use some more detail but it was not intended as 
a debating position with full proofs but a starting point for 
discussion. Although I was  professionally trained in debating, I must 
confess that debating (as opposed to discussion) is a poor way to reach 
a consensus position.

>| I tried to start such a thread saying what I thought about the
>| principles of topic maps and a description of the topic map model
>| using a particular methodology. I am still working on what I think
>| the other bits would be and their relationships to other parts. 
>
>Good.
>
>| I would prefer to write the next parts in conversation with what
>| others see as the various parts of the topic map effort. That is
>| difficult to do when people use names that have no shared
>| understanding. 
>
>I think we do have a common understanding and that we have had one for
>more than a year already. You may not be party to it, but my
>impression is that most people have been on the same page. If I am
>mistaken in that assumption, please, everyone, correct me. And please
>don't stop at correcting me, also tell me just what we are supposed to
>do to get everyone onto the same page. I've tried everything I can
>think of to fix this and if it hasn't worked I'm out of ideas for what
>to do.
>
>  
>
Well, I suspect I am not a party of one since you have asked on the 
mailing list for others to describe what they are uncertain about. I 
don't think you were posting such questions simply to have something to 
say since your technical postings have brought the work of this group 
forward on any number of occassions.

I was hoping that the prior posting (more to follow this next week) 
would be the start of a discussion that will reach the "meeting of the 
minds" that you are seeking. It could well be the case, since I am 
trying to not pre-judge the outcome, that everyone will agree to the 
terms in N0323 but with a common understanding of what they mean. But 
the only way to reach that point is to get people to express their 
positions (not as debating points) and then try to fashion a common 
understanding. (However annoying that process may seem, or rather, 
actually is.)

Patrick

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