[sc34wg3] A new idea for the Topic Maps standard

[Kal Ahmed]

At 08:54 05/02/2003 -0500, Michel Biezunski wrote:
>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.

I agree with you on this.

>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.

I think that topic maps still needs at least one normative interchange 
syntax in order to be a standard that is taken seriously by those that 
develop the software to support it and in order to give the users of the 
standard the confidence that they will be able to exchange data between 
different implementations of topic map processing systems.

Perhaps there is an argument for modularisation - making the interchange 
syntax(es) separate normative specifications , but I would be wary of 
having no normative interchange syntax specification at all.

Cheers,

Kal