[sc34wg3] N358 and N372 Requires synchronization: changes in workplan, names, etc.

[Mary Nishikawa]

Steve,

Thank you for your detailed reply. We really did need this clarification to 
move forward with our discussions. This is being forwarded to Komachi-san 
and SC34 Japan to be discussed at our next meeting on January 31.

Cheers,
Mary


At 07:59 PM 1/1/03 +0100, Steve Pepper wrote:
>Hi Mary,
>
>Thanks for your posting. Let me try and clarify the situation for you.
>
>At 02:44 01.01.2003 -0800, Mary Nishikawa wrote:
>>I guess it serves me right for leaving early before this was settled :)
>
>Don't be too hard on yourself: no-one can be present all the time! But as 
>long as *some* people from WG3 are present, things continue to be 
>discussed and moved forward... which I guess is a good thing, really.
>
>>On Saturday we had all agreed to a multi part standard.
>
>That was the proposal as of Saturday, yes.
>
>>Then this decision was discussed in private and another proposal was 
>>submitted, it seems.
>
>Actually the discussion started during the official WG meeting on the 
>Monday, specifically around my suggestion that the Reference Model more 
>properly belongs in a standard of its own. (I won't repeat my arguments 
>here. I think I discussed them with you at least briefly before you left 
>Baltimore.)
>
>The Monday meeting failed to resolve the issue, which seemed to me to be 
>largely one of marketing rather than anything technical. Charles Goldfarb 
>offered his help as mediator, so I took the initiative for what turned out 
>to be an Editors' Meeting on the Tuesday evening. Those present were Steve 
>N and Michel (RM editors), Lars Marius (SAM editor), myself (convenor), 
>and Charles.
>
>With Charles' help we reached consensus on several issues, in particular 
>that it is important to get the marketing right! Topic Maps mustn't appear 
>to be more complicated than they are: Different kinds of users of the 
>standard should be able to get at the information they need easily, 
>without having to wade through oceans of what to them is largely 
>irrelevant. In that respect, a series of small and compact standards (like 
>the W3C's XML specifications) is better than a large and cumbersome one 
>(like HyTime), or one consisting of multiple parts (like STEP). We already 
>have four projects approved: Three IS's (13250, TMQL and TMCL) and a TR 
>(Conceptual Model). Adding a couple more would result in a neat little 
>'family' that would be easier for most users to relate to (and avoid 
>giving the impression that topic maps are impossibly complex).
>
>In a sense, this was SC34 learning the lession of HyTime...
>
>Following the meeting, Michel and I drew up a plan for a new "road map" 
>suggesting a disposition of material across several standards. This was 
>then communicated to all the WG3 members we could find in the time 
>remaining before the SC34 closing plenary and received the approval of 
>everyone who saw it. On behalf of Japan, Naito-san was fully informed, and 
>I also had a brief conversation with him and Komachi-san to explain the 
>thinking behind the proposal.
>
>The new road map was discussed by WG3 during the closing plenary and 
>modified slightly. The resulting consensus is given in N372, which was 
>then approved by SC34. In my opinion, there is no conflict between N372 
>and N358. N372 simply represents the current consensus on how the material 
>listed in N358 will be distributed among documents.
>
>>The structure of the Topic Map Standard as described in N372 does not 
>>seem to agree with the proposal in N0358.
>
>N358 is not to be construed as showing a final disposition of content 
>between what was originally expected to be multiple parts (and is now 
>planned as separate standards). It simply shows the kind of content that 
>is expected to be included.
>
>>The national bodies need to vote on this by March 20, 2003. There is 
>>conflicting information and we need clarification to consider this properly.
>
>I will try to answer each of your points in turn. As you will see, I don't 
>think there is any conflict (though the fact that you think there is shows 
>that there is a need for clarification).
>
>>In N358 we have
>>
>>1. A guide to the relationships between the topic maps standards
>>2. The Standard Application Model (Data Model)
>>3. The Reference Model (Information Aggregation Model), etc.
>>4. XTM Syntax
>>5. HyTM Syntax
>>6. Canonication of Topics Maps
>>
>>For the program of work there will be 3 international standards and an 
>>amendment or amendments to ISO 13250.
>>
>>Which ones are the standards and which ones are the amendments?
>
>As noted above, nos. 1-6 are *not* a disposition of content, so there is 
>no direct correlation between them and the new standards/amendments. Note 
>the use of the word 'expected' (twice) under Programme of Work. In this 
>way a New Work Item Proposal (NP) leaves room for adjustments, which 
>almost always turn out to be necessary during the development of a standard.
>
>>In N372
>>
>>1. ISO 13250  plus basic concepts (1 above?) and Annexes for XTM and HyTM 
>>(4 and 5 above)? These annexes are the amendments mentioned above?
>
>This is the amendment, yes, to 13250, which will not change substantially 
>from what it is today.
>
>>2. ISO XXXXX Topic Maps Data Model (SAM)  So this  name will be changed?
>
>As far as I am concerned, none of the names are cast in stone yet.
>
>>(Annexes for deserialization and mapping of SAM to RM .... new 
>>information that is not included above? Why is this in the SAM?)
>
>There is nothing new here. It was always the intention to include a 
>mapping from the SAM to the RM. (This is part of the "relationships 
>between the topic maps standards", see No. 1, above.)
>
>Using the old terminology (which is on the way to being changed, as you 
>will have seen on the mailing list), the "RM" will provide the basis for 
>defining "TM Applications". The "SAM" is one such "TM Application" - the 
>most important, standard, one. For each such "TM Application" there may be 
>one or more interchange syntax (XTM and HyTM in the case of the SAM). 
>Given this arrangement, it makes most sense to include the SAM-to-RM 
>mapping and the (SAM-related) XTM and HyTM deserialization specifications 
>as annexes to the SAM.
>
>>3. ISO XXXXX Topic Maps Information Aggregation Model (RM)
>>
>>I guess this one has not been decided on yet with the discussions on this 
>>list. I hope that whatever is settled is placed into N359 later.
>
>I don't think that would be appropriate. N359 should reflect the position 
>as of the Baltimore plenary. New decisions should be formalized in London 
>in May.
>
>>4. ISO XXXX Topic Maps Conformance
>>
>>(This looks like 4 standards to me now, is this correct?)
>
>As of today, it is "expected" that there will be six standards altogether, 
>exactly as listed in N372. Given that we already have approval for three 
>(13250, TMQL, and TMCL) that means three new standards, as suggested in 
>the NP. [I actually proposed that the Conceptual Model TR be "upgraded" to 
>an IS and contain the SAM (or the RM). This is only a formal mechanism, 
>but it would be a convenient way of cleaning our books. There wasn't 
>consensus on this approach so it didn't go into N372.]
>
>>Why all of these name changes all of a sudden?
>
>They are a result of the evolving consensus on how the pieces fit together 
>and how best to present them to the world. I can only speak for myself, 
>but I have never regarded "Reference Model" and "Standard Application 
>Model" as the final names, just as I didn't with "Foundational Model" and 
>"Processing Model" earlier. That's one reason why I have been sceptical to 
>too much marketing of these names outside the committee. I have always 
>felt that we needed to reach a fuller understanding of the role of each 
>before finally settling on their names. It seems to me that we are getting 
>very close now...
>
>>It is very difficult to comment on N0358 as it stands or perhaps this 
>>will be corrected and resubmitted?
>
>I don't think that is necessary. It is not a final blueprint, but it *is* 
>sufficiently detailed that its purpose should be clear.
>
>>At local Japan meetings, we have spent much time discussing what name has 
>>become what. Where is the conceptual model, or TMPM4 or this or that data 
>>model, etc. We need to translate all of these changes and explain why 
>>these name changes have been made. There not only affects ISO but also 
>>JIS and IPSJ who are made up of many representatives of Japanese 
>>electronics companies and governmental bodies. Naito-san and I will be 
>>speaking on Topic Maps at the IPSJ National Convention in March, and we 
>>need to give a report on the progress  of the topic map standards. 
>>Especially, we should hope for stable names at least.
>
>I agree - but not before we really understand what we are doing: It isn't 
>really feasible to name things appropriately before we know what they are! 
>I am confident that the Japanese committee will be able to explain what is 
>necessarily an evolutionary process in such a way that WG3's flexible 
>approach actually strengthens the confidence of industry representatives, 
>rather than weakens it...
>
>>Now on this list this week, Steve Newcomb is asking for ideas to replace 
>>the name of the RM and he has outlined a new work plan. Will this all 
>>supersede related information that is now in 358? I request that this be 
>>settled as soon as possible and really decide on the name and not keep on 
>>changing it. Once the names and Program of work has really been discussed 
>>an decided on, then have all of this in the Proposal for the New Work Item.
>>Maybe it is already in the plan to update and resubmit 358, but from the 
>>formality of the submission and the ballot, it did not seem this way to us.
>
>I hope that my explanation helped and that you now agree that it would be 
>positively *unwise* to cast names and dispositions of content in stone at 
>this stage. An NP needs to leave room for maneuver. N358 does that, but 
>also contains more than enough detail for the ballot. As to the "work 
>plan" that Steve N mentioned, that is merely advance notice of how the 
>editors of the "RM" plan to proceed in the next few months. As such it 
>very welcome indeed and will help us make progress between now and London.
>
>>I was very encouraged as I left Baltimore knowing so many SAM issues had 
>>been resolved, and it was one of the reasons why I came to Baltimore in 
>>the first place. I think we should all applaud the hard work and resolve 
>>the ambiguities in the New Work Item so that we can go forward as soon as 
>>possible.
>
>I agree that the Baltimore meeting was immensely constructive. We should 
>all congratulate ourselves (o-tsukare sama deshita). I think we are in 
>very good shape and expect even greater things in London!
>
>Thanks for your comments, Mary. I understand your concerns and hope that 
>this reply puts your mind at rest. If you need more information, don't 
>hesitate to ask, either on this list, or by contacting me directly.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Steve
>--
>Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
>Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
>Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
>http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246
>
>_______________________________________________
>sc34wg3 mailing list
>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3