[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Michel Biezunski]

[Steve P:]

> (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.)

I find it's too limiting. Saying that implies that we
are targeting the SAM model to XML developers, whereas what
SAM really is is how to model knowledge. It should be
appealing to information owners and anybody who wants to
do some kind of knowledge management and doesn't even
know that XML exists.

Also, the Infoset is basically a technical jargon only
understandable within the XML/W3C community which in
layman's terms means: it's a good principle to document
a text and specifically to provide definitions. I think 
the message is rather: "Use the XXX to topicmap 
your information."

This is the reason why I prefer "TM Standard Model".

> (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.

If there is still confusion -- and I think it's still there
-- I think we should continue this discussion until it
becomes clear and even obvious to the members of this
group what we are doing and what are the different levels.

Let's keep this discussion open until we all can 
feel we know what we are doing and how the various
pieces fit together.

> Are we getting close now?

Closer.

Michel
===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================