[sc34wg3] Structuring the topic map standards

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Patrick Durusau
|
| 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.

Well, that discussion was started by the proposal in Baltimore to
abandon N0323 and adopt a different roadmap. So the existence of that
discussion need not necessarily imply that there wasn't agreement
about N0323. What it does imply is that proposals were put forward
that were incompatible with N0323 and that we need to discuss those.

| 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.

I hope so as well, but so far people have not been very precise. As
you say it's easy to think one agrees without actually doing so and
the only way to avoid that is to be very precise. So far in this
discussion we haven't been precise enough (except SRN with his
conformance proposal for the RM, which was very precise).
 
| 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.

I know you are not, Patrick. Are you trying to tell me that I did not
explain it in sufficient detail? I guess you are. I'm not sure what I
want to do about that. It would be very useful to have the input of
other people here.
 
| N0323 says (on the reference model, in part):
|   [...]
|
| I said in my post:
|   [...]
| 
| 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'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you can tell that
your posting and N0323 do not agree with one another it means you can
tell what N0323 is saying, doesn't it? (I agree with you that what you
said is different from what N0323 says.)

I'm happy to update N0323 so that it agrees with the new opinion of
what the RM/TMMP should be, once people can give me a detailed
description I can put in. The important thing is not so much that as
it is the relationship between the different pieces of the puzzle.

| 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.

Basically, what I was trying to do was work out the basis for the
proposal put forward in Baltimore and to see how we could reconcile
the new ideas SRN and SCP had there with N0323. That was really all,
but it seems to have made you and MB everything was up for grabs.

Which, I guess, it always is, in one sense, but now we thought we were
nearing the finish line, so having people restart old discussions at
this point does not exactly make me very enthusiastic.
 
| 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.

If we could do that it would be great. The question is how to get
there. 

| 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.)

We agree on that.

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