[sc34wg3] For or Against N323! [Was:Topic Maps land and SAM land]

[Sam Hunting]

> *LMG
> > > If the OKS is an RM tool, then Excel, Notepad, and Apache are also RM
> > > tools.
> 
> *Sam Hunting
> >Well, supposing that all of these tools generated data that contained
> >inherent topic map information, and supposing that they could be specified
> >as such using the RM, would that be such a bad thing? "Embrace and
> >extend" sounds like a pretty good idea to me ;-)
> 
> I didn't realize that the RM was thought of as this metaphysical. I can 
> understand better now the disagreement and I think that this can go on 
> forever if we let it.

Not sure of the connotations that "metaphysics" has for you, so I am not
sure if we are on the same wavelength here or not. I would be interested
to know your description of the "disagreement"? I don't think it has to go
on forever if we can get down to working with the text*s* -- obviously
email threads can and do go on if not forever, then for a very long time,
which is why I am thinking of adding "email delenda est" to my sig.

> This really all began with Steve's request for a Let's revert to N323!  So 
> Sam, do you agree with continuing with N323 for the roadmap?

My view doesn't really count. I don't represent anyone but myself, and if
I have any expertise at all, it isn't to be found in highly political
arenas such as this one.

That said --

My personal view of the "roadmap" is that it is a rough guide to a
division of labor in the topic map community, and as such it has served us
very well. 

That said --

The roadmap is necessarily rough (a) because we can't know in advance all
the issues that will arise in working out the text of the standard(s), (b)
because we can't know in advance how the text of the standard(s) will
ultimately be arranged (as Michel cogently points out), (c) because it is
apparently subject to a good deal of mid-course correction anyhow (as in
Baltimore), a condition that is likely to persist in the future, given the
desire or need for "wiggle room," etc., and (d) this is a committee
anyhow. So, operationally, that is what "continuing with N323" would mean
to me, and I don't know whether others would agree with my interpretation.
A shorter way of saying this is that N323 cannot be, in the nature of the
case, a project plan. (See especially point (c) supra.)

As for votes, ISO has very well established procedures for this sort of
thing, and if we aren't sticking to them, it seems to me that we should,
since the procedures are one of the strengths of the ISO brand. If we got
off track in Baltimore by not sticking to the procedures, then we should
be careful not to compound the error.

> I would really like to know from each and every person on WG3 what their 
> "vote" is on this. A simple answer to this mail "For" or "Against" would 
> suffice. Thanks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mary
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> 

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps 

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------