[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steven R. Newcomb
| 
| I have problems with the name "Topic Maps Data Model".
| 
| The term "data model" means many
| things to many people.  People frequently say, "the
| relational data model", and they also frequently use
| the same term to mean much more application-specific
| things, like, "the SAM data model" (which has nothing
| to do with our SAM, by the way -- see
| http://d0db.fnal.gov/sam/doc/design/sam_entities/story.html).

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure that's a problem, however.
 
| The relationship between our RM and our SAM is
| analogous to the relationship between 
| 
| * the relational model 
| 
|   and 
| 
| * a relational model for accounts receivable.

I very strongly disagree. Topic maps are not restricted to a specific
domain, but as generic as the relational model itself.
 
| Therefore, the name "The Topic Maps Data Model" is too vague.  The
| RM could also be called a "data model", and many people would
| vigorously agree with the use of that term to characterize the RM.

Sure, the RM is a data model. It's only becaue it is deliberately
intended it to be used to create new models that it becomes a
metamodel. 
 
| The RM's name is wrong precisely because its name makes it appear to
| occupy the space of the SAM.

Sure, but call them "Topic Map Metamodel" and "Topic Map Model" and
that problem will be gone.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >