[sc34wg3] Modularization

[Michel Biezunski]

* Holger:

> I have two problems with this "brand extension" idea:
> 
> (1) This is on the meta level about branding:
> Have you ever noticed what happens when a company (e.g.,
> a car manufacturer like Porsche) droped some news about 
> a new version (e.g., new version of the Boxter): nearly
> nobody wants to buy the 'old' (= current) version -
> everybody waits for the next (better?) version. This is
> not really about branding, more marketing & sales but I
> hope you get the point.

What happens sometimes also is someone else comes with
something newer, more fun, looking more exciting and
everybody turns to it instead of the old one, because
it has not made proper adjustment when it was still time.


* Holger:

> (2) This is about "Topic Maps" as a brand: We have two
> groups of people in the TM community with two different
> views on what is behind the "Topic Maps" brand. One group
> says it is what 13250:2000, XTM, and the SAM define. The
> other groups says it is more, it is what's behind 13250,
> XTM, and SAM - something we currently call the RM. So my
> problem/question is: Which of the two meanings of the brand
> "Topic Maps" do you want to extend?

I am not sure the two different views as you put it will
stay for ever. I am not even sure it is desirable. I am
actually sure that the contrary is true. What's happening 
is that there are different places where work has been made 
on topic maps, and there are all useful and important, 
although not necessarily very clear up to this point. 

The challenge we are confronted to now is putting the
pieces back together. Who is going to take topic maps
seriously if we first have to explain that when we mean
topic maps, we mean topic maps flavor #1 and absolutely not
topic maps flavor #2? And depending who you speak to, 
you will get just the opposite answer! Do you really 
believe this is a recipe for success?


Michel