[sc34wg3] Modularization

Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:15:50 -0500

--------------070906020409090506020809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kal,

Kal Ahmed wrote:

>On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 15:25, Sam Hunting wrote:
>  
>
<snip>

>>>      
>>>
>>If we can make our standards work as Michel suggests -- become platforms
>>for topic map brand extension -- won't we all be better off?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure. If the topic map "brand" is extended to the point that one
>can squint at anything and claim it is a topic map and to the extent
>that all XML can be treated as topic map interchange syntax, then I
>think that the topic map brand will have been devalued to the point of
>meaninglessness.
>  
>
So far as I know, no one has advocated being able to "squint at 
anything" and calling it a topic map. ;-)

The RM specifies what has to be present for something to qualify as a 
Topic Map Application and by implication, what must be present for 
something that has been processed to be a topic map.

I doubt rather seriously that extending the Ford "brand" to make more 
that one kind of car rendered it "meaningless" at least in terms of 
market share.

>My feeling is that the topic map model expressed in ISO 13250 strikes a
>perfect balance between simplicity and practicality. It hits the 80/20
>point that RDF misses by miles, and I fear that the RM also does not
>achieve. 
>
Care to venture some specifics on where the RM misses?

A public comment procedure has been posted but it is hard to know what 
particular part of the RM is being addressed by your comments.

>
>The comparatively rapid uptake of the standard and the later development
>of both tools and bespoke systems based on the standard is testament to
>that balance. XTM moved ISO 13250 out of the shadow of HyTime and into
>the XML spotlight, which was a Good Thing. The SAM, TMCL and TMQL will
>build on ISO 13250 and XTM to improve interoperability and the "core"
>functionality of topic maps. And I think that it is these things that
>need to move forward with focus and with speed to extend the reach of
>topic maps into the general community.
>  
>
Curious what you mean by "interoperability?" Doesn't an interchange 
syntax provide interoperability?

What I don't see is the binary choice of SAM vs. RM. If the SAM meets a 
particular application need, much like XML, users should use the SAM. If 
the SAM does not meet an application need, is your suggestion that we 
simply not have a mechanism to meet those needs? (A make the need fit 
the tool approach?)

>Having read the arguments so far in this and other threads, I am still
>not convinced that the RM helps move the cause of topic maps forwards.
>  
>
So, what sort of argument or evidence would you find convincing? 
(Serious question, not rhetorical.)

It also depends on what you mean by "move the cause of topic maps 
forwards." If you mean the RM fails to promote a particular 
implementation of topic maps, well, you've got me there partner! If 
people want to market a particular implementation of topic maps I think 
they need to do it somewhere other than in the ISO. Newspapers, 
magazines, TV and radio are more appropriate places for that sort of 
promotion.

I see the RM as moving the cause of topic maps forwards as it does not 
limit implementers/customers to what was known at the time a particular 
implementation was developed. Unless someone in this discussion is 
claiming omniscience, I see no reason for priviledging the SAM as "the" 
implementation of topic maps.

Patrick

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

--------------070906020409090506020809
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
Kal,<br>
<br>
Kal Ahmed wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid1044727208.1139.47.camel@piggy.ontopia.u-net.com">
  <pre wrap="">On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 15:25, Sam Hunting wrote:
  </pre>
</blockquote>
&lt;snip&gt;<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid1044727208.1139.47.camel@piggy.ontopia.u-net.com">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">
If we can make our standards work as Michel suggests -- become platforms
for topic map brand extension -- won't we all be better off?

    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
I'm not sure. If the topic map "brand" is extended to the point that one
can squint at anything and claim it is a topic map and to the extent
that all XML can be treated as topic map interchange syntax, then I
think that the topic map brand will have been devalued to the point of
meaninglessness.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
So far as I know, no one has advocated being able to "squint at anything"
and calling it a topic map. ;-)<br>
<br>
The RM specifies what has to be present for something to qualify as a Topic
Map Application and by implication, what must be present for something that
has been processed to be a topic map. <br>
<br>
I doubt rather seriously that extending the Ford "brand" to make more that
one kind of car rendered it "meaningless" at least in terms of market share.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid1044727208.1139.47.camel@piggy.ontopia.u-net.com">
  <pre wrap="">
My feeling is that the topic map model expressed in ISO 13250 strikes a
perfect balance between simplicity and practicality. It hits the 80/20
point that RDF misses by miles, and I fear that the RM also does not
achieve. </pre>
</blockquote>
Care to venture some specifics on where the RM misses? <br>
<br>
A public comment procedure has been posted but it is hard to know what particular
part of the RM is being addressed by your comments. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid1044727208.1139.47.camel@piggy.ontopia.u-net.com">
  <pre wrap="">

The comparatively rapid uptake of the standard and the later development
of both tools and bespoke systems based on the standard is testament to
that balance. XTM moved ISO 13250 out of the shadow of HyTime and into
the XML spotlight, which was a Good Thing. The SAM, TMCL and TMQL will
build on ISO 13250 and XTM to improve interoperability and the "core"
functionality of topic maps. And I think that it is these things that
need to move forward with focus and with speed to extend the reach of
topic maps into the general community.
 </pre>
</blockquote>
Curious what you mean by "interoperability?" Doesn't an interchange syntax
provide interoperability? 
 
What I don't see is the binary choice of SAM vs. RM. If the SAM meets a particular
application need, much like XML, users should use the SAM. If the SAM does
not meet an application need, is your suggestion that we simply not have
a mechanism to meet those needs? (A make the need fit the tool approach?) 
 
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid1044727208.1139.47.camel@piggy.ontopia.u-net.com">
 <pre wrap="">
Having read the arguments so far in this and other threads, I am still
not convinced that the RM helps move the cause of topic maps forwards.
 </pre>
</blockquote>
So, what sort of argument or evidence would you find convincing? (Serious
question, not rhetorical.) 
 
It also depends on what you mean by "move the cause of topic maps forwards."
If you mean the RM fails to promote a particular implementation of topic
maps, well, you've got me there partner! If people want to market a particular
implementation of topic maps I think they need to do it somewhere other than
in the ISO. Newspapers, magazines, TV and radio are more appropriate places
for that sort of promotion. 
 
I see the RM as moving the cause of topic maps forwards as it does not limit
implementers/customers to what was known at the time a particular implementation
was developed. Unless someone in this discussion is claiming omniscience,
I see no reason for priviledging the SAM as "the" implementation of topic
maps. 
 
Patrick 
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu">pdurusau@emory.edu</a>
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps
</pre>
 
</body>
</html>

--------------070906020409090506020809--