[sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!

[Mary Nishikawa]

At 17:29 03/02/02 +0100, you wrote:
>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.

Steve,

First of all thanks for writing this.


>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.

Yes, this is what we have been discussing all along since I joined the 
National Body of Japan last yearin the Spring and it made sense to us, so 
we have been thinking about it and agreed to it for at least 8 months at 
least. This is very important and not to be taken lightly.


>In Baltimore we changed this "roadmap" in two separate ways:
>
>(i)  We recommended going for multiple standards instead of a multipart
>      standard.

This multiple to separate isn't the worst. The Problem is   3 standards 
plus amendments were selected for 6 documents. How were these to be broken 
up? It was not clear to us when reading this New Work Proposal.

Actually the first draft had 6 documents listed  which would become 6 parts 
in a multipart standard. The math works out.
It looked to us as if t his was changed in haste and did not represent what 
had been discussed over a long period by all interested parties, including 
local members in Japan, who did not attend WG3 meetings.


>(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.

Just look at where the drafts stand now and how they would read. He would 
have to do substantive rewrites on three documents just to get it to "fit" 
nevermind whether it would make complete sense or not.


>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.)

We discussed this at our local meeting and thought it was important enough 
to vote "no" on the New Work Item until this is  straightened out. I will 
forward this to Komachi-san and he will decide what is best.

Komachi-san also mentioned that the ballot is incomplete since it is 
missing the New Work Item Acceptance Criteria.


>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>sc34wg3 mailing list
>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3