[sc34wg3] Modularization

[Lars Marius Garshol]

I'm not really opposed to what you propose here, Michel, and in fact I
quite like the sound of it. 

However, I am having some difficulty working out exactly what it
means.  Could you give a listing of the parts of the new ISO 13250
that you think this would result in? It's OK if it's just an example,
but it would really make it much easier to understand what you want.

(And please don't think that I'm asking for more precision just to be
difficult. It sounds to me as if you are asking people whether they
agree with your proposal or not, but how can I meaningfully answer
that before I know what the proposal is?)

* Michel Biezunski
|
| The API nature of the SAM and related
| proposed approaches is fine in the sense
| that it provides a background for some
| applications built on the very same
| preconceptions, but it is limitating in
| the sense that it won't encompass a number
| of applications built on different principles
| but with the same objective. For that reason,
| it can't be at the center of the revamped
| topic map standard without putting us 
| in a place where we will not be able
| to provide for the glue between other stuff.

This is one part I am having trouble with. Could you look at

<URL: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323_files/roadmap.png >

and tell us which bits you think should change? I'm asking because I
don't know what you mean by "be at the center of the revamped topic
map standard."

| I am not happier with the way the RM is
| done until now. It contains both an abstract
| description of organization of knowledge and
| a set of constraints about implementations
| and these 2 aspects ought to be separated.

Again I'm not clear on what you mean. Are you thinking that the
concepts "proxies for subjects" and "assertions about subjects" should
be described in one part, and that the graph model for these concepts
should be in a different part?

I think that's a good idea, but I'm wondering whether we might not
then just skip the graph model entirely and only do the prose
description of the concepts. I'd be interested to hear what the RM
people think of that.
 
| What really I see this discussion being about is
| to separate the existing topic maps standard into
| 2 levels: one level that would enable basic connectivity
| for knowledge units, and one level that would enable
| a richer connectivity because of a higher level of precision
| in the constructs used to describe information.

Roughly comparable with the current RM/SAM distinction, but slightly
different. Right?

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >