[sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!

[Steve Pepper]

Baltimore was a very productive meeting in many ways, especially
in terms of resolving issues in the SAM. But the decisions we took
relating to the "roadmap" have simply caused confusion.

Until then we had documented consensus on the direction we were
taking, as shown in N323

    http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm

In summary, this consensus consisted of the following:

(1)  13250 would be "restated" as a multipart standard with the SAM
      as its core.
(2)  Separate parts would be devoted to the XTM and HyTM syntaxes
      respectively. Each would include a deserialization specification
      expressed in terms of the SAM as well as a specification of the
      syntax itself.
(3)  A separate part would be devoted to the canonicalization syntax,
      again expressed in terms of the SAM.
(4)  TMCL and TMQL would be separate standards defined in terms of the
      SAM.
(5)  The Reference Model would constitute a separate part of 13250 and
      there would be a mapping from the RM to the SAM.

In Baltimore we changed this "roadmap" in two separate ways:

(i)  We recommended going for multiple standards instead of a multipart
      standard.
(ii) We rearranged the distribution of content between the SAM and the
      syntax parts.

According to Lars Marius (the editor and primus motor behind both the SAM
and the XTM syntax specification) the latter decision screws things up for
him in a major way. We should take this very seriously.

Other people have also objected to the way in which the latter two
decisions were reached.

For those reasons, I think we should do as Lars Marius suggests and
regard N323 as the last documented consensus.

In London we should take a final decision on whether to go the multipart
route or the multiple standard route. Provided our new work item proposal
(N358) is approved, I think we are free to make that choice ourselves.
(That is, although N358 states that we "expect" to develop more than one
standard, we can still do a multipart standard, if we so choose.)

However, if we are to make progress with the SAM we *have* to resolve
the "distribution of content" issue so that the editors can resume
working.

I propose, therefore, that we disregard the final paragraph under
Section 4 of N372 and ask the editors to continue work along the lines
described in N323.

I ask everyone else to focus on N323 and say what, if anything, they
disagree with there and what, if anything, they feel is too vague and
needs to be expanded.

Once again, the URL is

    http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm

Print it out! Read it! Send your comments!

I am particularly interested in knowing if the various National Body
representatives on this list (1) agree to let N323 be our starting point
for further discussion; (2) wish to suggest any changes to N323.

Japan? Korea? US? Canada? Germany? UK? Netherlands? Norway? Please let
me know if you agree with this proposal.

Thanks.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246