[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Steve Pepper]

At 17:49 01.01.2003 -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.

Then I'm very glad I asked - I interpreted your "Aha!"
statement (above) to mean you were concurring with Sam,
who seems still to be wary of the term "metamodel".

>   (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.

Good call? I was being wildly facetious :)

>   In retrospect, it appears that identifying HyTime with
>   the Borg menace in Star Trek may not have been the
>   wisest marketing policy for HyTime. (:^(

I think we can safely conclude that very little of our
marketing policy for HyTime got anywhere close to "wise".
I want to make sure we don't repeat that mistake now!

>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:
>
>[Three good points elided]
>
>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."

You convinced me. Simplicity is a virtue as well. Let's
look at *these* two names side by side:

(1) Topic Maps Metamodel
(2) Topic Maps Information Set

(a) We seem to have agreed that the "RM" really is a model
     whose purpose is to allow the definition of other
     models (such as the "SAM") and that, as such, it is
     most accurately called a "Metamodel". Pretty much
     everyone seems to have overcome their fear of that
     term now.

(b) Using the term "Information Set" for the "SAM" is
     both accurate (since that's the formalism it uses)
     and self-explanatory -- at least for those who know
     the purpose of the XML Information Set, which I would
     say constitutes a large proportion of our audience
     for the "SAM" (as opposed to our audience for topic
     maps in general, of course). (This is also Good
     Marketing.)

(c) Avoiding the use of the term "Model" on its own for
     either model removes the confusion caused by the
     fact that *both* are models that happen to work at
     different levels.

Are we getting close now?

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