[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Steven R. Newcomb]

Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net> writes:

> At 14:10 31.12.2002 -0600, Steven R. Newcomb wrote:
> >Sam Hunting <shunting@etopicality.com> writes:
> >
> > > "MetaModel" is noted -- but my feeling is that it
> > > suggests the "more meta than thou" wars, and I don't
> > > want to go there.
> >
> >Ouch.  Aha!  You have put your finger on what was
> >bothering me about this.
> 
> Then can you explain it? What are the "more meta than
> thou wars"? Something from Star Trek?

Sorry.  I should have explained that I think what was
bothering me about "metamodel" turned out to be
irrelevant.  

  (If you must know, I was reminded of something Eliot
  Kimber and I both used to say in public about
  HyTime's overwhelmingly superior meta-ness:
  "Resistance is futile.  You *will* be assimilated."
  So, yes, it was from Star Trek.  Good call.  In
  retrospect, it appears that identifying HyTime with
  the Borg menace in Star Trek may not have been the
  wisest marketing policy for HyTime. (:^( 

  It seemed like a catchy idea at the time, but I'm not
  proposing it now.  Anyway, we don't want a "cease and
  desist" letter from Paramount Pictures.)

Since we're talking about what to name the RM...

I'm having problems with the name you're proposing,
"Information Aggregation Metamodel", but now only with
the first two words of it.  Look at the following two
names side by side:

(1) TM Information Aggregation Metamodel

(2) TM Standard Model

Just by looking at the above two names, I think one
might draw one or more of the following unhappy
conclusions:

(a) The Standard Model doesn't involve information
    aggregation.

(b) Some topic maps -- the "standard" ones (perhaps as
    opposed to the "deluxe" or "automatic" ones) --
    can't or don't support information aggregation.

(c) There is no dependency between the Standard Model
    and the IAM unless you want to do information
    aggregation, which is optional.

Since I hope and believe none of the above are true,
and in any case I think it would be bad policy to
encourage people to think they are true, I'm now
thinking that I'd prefer just-plain "TM Metamodel" over
"TM Information Aggregation Metamodel."

I'm glad that you care about the name we're going to
use for the RM; I, too, think it matters.  I'm grateful
for everyone's suggestions, and I request that we
continue thinking about it for a while longer.
Changing names is traumatic, inconvenient, and
annoying; I'd like to get it right this time so we
don't have to do it again later.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

Coolheads Consulting
http://www.coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA