[sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!

[Patrick Durusau]

Holger,

Rath, Holger (empolis KL) wrote:
<snip>

>We should again raise the issue if the RM is a part of this multipart
>standard or a separate standard on its own.
>  
>
All right, consider the issue raised.

What do you think are the reasons for either including the RM as part of 
this multipart standard or it being a separate standard on its own?

Since I am asking for your opinion, I will offer my own:

The RM should be part of this multipart standard.

(The following are personal statements and do not reflect any official 
or unofficial opinion of any group, organization or other persons.)

Reasons:

The RM is designed to define the essence of what it means to be a topic 
map and provides a heuristic device for evaluating topic map models and 
topic maps separate and apart from any particular data model or 
implementation or instance of a topic map. (If anyone disagrees with 
this assessment, it would be helpful if you could point to the parts of 
the RM that you read as supporting some contrary view. I am aware that 
contrary views exist, but they do not appear to be based on reading of 
the RM but on other grounds. That appearance could be resolved by 
citations to the RM.)

That seems to me to be foundational in nature and most appropriately 
placed in the multipart topic map standard.

.Patrick

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