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

[Mary Nishikawa]

Hi Sam,

At 04:26 03/02/10 -0500, you wrote:
> > *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 am not saying that the RM is metaphysical, only some of the statements
make by some people here about it. When this happens, I expect very long and
heated discussions.

Whenever someone says that such and such a description/method/model is the
"essence of the meaning of that that thing, and can be used to define all 
instances
of that thing,"we are in metaphysical territory.

This is in your  general statement that inherent TM data in any software 
could be
specified using the RM, and that defines the tool as an RM tool.

This is also related to Patrick's statement, "The RM is designed to define the
essence of what it means to be a topic map and provides a heuristic device for
evaluating topic map models and topic maps separate and apart from any 
particular
data model or implementation or instance of a topic map."

The RM is either a particular type of graph model for topic maps or it is
in some other realm. I hope that it is the former.

>I would be interested
>to know your description of the "disagreement"?

It's when the RM is being described in this  other realm.

These kinds of  statements make for endless discussions.
Take a look at the threads that stir up lots of emotions and
don't seem to reach any conclusions.

>My view doesn't really count.

Sam, it counts for me :)

>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.

Glad you think so. Thanks for your feeback.

Cheers,
Mary