[sc34wg3] A new idea for the Topic Maps standard

[Mason, James David (MXM)]

I think this is interesting, but then what would be left as normative? (BTW,
it's pretty hard to take something that's already normative [e.g., HyTM,
XTM] and make it only informative: it amounts to withdrawing a standard.)

Jim Mason

James David Mason, Ph.D.

Y-12 National Security Complex
Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A.
+1 865 574 6973

Chairman, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/sc34oldhome.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Biezunski [mailto:mb@coolheads.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:54 AM
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Subject: [sc34wg3] A new idea for the Topic Maps standard


I've got a new idea I'd like to propose to discussion.

It comes from the fact that there are several attempts
of syntaxes out there which aim to do things quite
similar than topic maps. I have two examples in mind:
XIL (the Extensible Indexing Language) and another one
is XFML (the eXchangeable Faceted Metadata Language). I
am sure there are others.

There are 2 attitudes we can have:

1) Tell these people their stuff is limited, not appropriate,
that there is something much better called Topic Maps and that
*THE* XML syntax is called XTM. It's the only one. Period. If
people are not doing it, it means they don't know what's good.

2) Tell them that no problem these syntaxes can be interpreted
as topic maps and open for wider interchange. Doing that would
ensure that Topic Maps will be able to fulfill its objective,
i.e. to merge knowledge, furthermore regardless of which syntax 
it's expressed in.

I favor attitude #2. I think this is the winning proposition because
we set up topic maps for the long run and we preserve the values
of the major concepts and the way they can be processed.

This has one consequence, that may help solve one problem
that Lars was pointing at (what to do with HyTM?): Make XTM
as well as HyTM non-normative *examples* of how topic maps can
be interchanged. By doing that, we provide hospitality for other
future syntaxes, designed by others, to be part of the topic maps
interchangeable world. Speaking of how the standard is structured,
it may also have the consequence to make SAM a non-normative technical
report.

I'd be interested to know what you think about this idea.

Michel

===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
> [mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]On Behalf Of Lars Marius Garshol
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:51 AM
> To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!
> 
> 
> 
> * Holger Rath
> | 
> | (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
> 
> I buy both of these suggestions. 
> 
> This also raises two questions:
> 
>  - can we find someone to write the HyTM part?
> 
>  - if not, what do we do? leave it out of the reformulated standard?
> 
> -- 
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> 
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3