[sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!

[Rath, Holger (empolis KL)]

Hi,

As the Germany SC34 delegation has only observer status
there is no official German statement. 

However, my personal opinion is as follows:

(1) I see N323 as the starting point for further discussions.

(2) suggested changes: 

    - update the author/editor information for the parts (e.g.,
      we have no name for HyTime right now)
    - add a time schedule for the work on the parts

We should again raise the issue if the RM is a part of this multipart
standard or a separate standard on its own.

Regards,
--Holger

--
Dr. H. Holger Rath
- Head of Consulting -

empolis * GmbH
arvato knowledge management
part of arvato: a Bertelsmann company
Europaallee 10
67657 Kaiserslautern, Germany

phone :  +49-172-66-90-427
fax   :  +49-631-303-5507

<mailto:holger.rath@empolis.com>
http://www.empolis.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Pepper [mailto:pepper@ontopia.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:30 PM
> To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject: [sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>