[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Sam Hunting]

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | I have to say I agree. If we are to stick more than just "topic
> | maps" and "metamodel" in there we should have some idea about what
> | those extra words are going to do. Apart from giving us a
> | pronounceable acronym I don't see that "Information Aggregation"
> | gives us anything much.
> 
> * Steve Pepper
> |
> | Saying what the thing is *for* doesn't give us anything much????
> 
> If that were the only thing it was for it would, but of course
> Information Aggregation is not the only thing the RM is for. This
> would be like calling XML "Simplified Web Document Description
> Language". That's what it was for when it was created, but...

Vehement agreement. (Statistics ;-)


> | But (despite the way we sometimes behave) I think we would all
> | genuinely like "topic maps" to succeed in the market place. Having a
> | name that immediately conveys some impression of the kind of
> | business problems we address is one way to market our product.
> 
> I think we should be careful with that, lest we create a name that
> makes people assume there are certain things the standard does *not*
> do. 

Vehement agreement. (Statistics? ;-)

Of course the standard needs to succeed in the marketplace, but the
marketplace cycles through change faster than the standards process or the
standard itself (let alone the names used in the marketplace). So if we
couple the text and the title of the standard too closely to the
marketplace, we'll be changing the text and the titles constantly, therby
undercutting the very perception of stability a standard is meant to
create. (For example, SGML turned out to be a much better term than Office
Document Architecture, even though "Office Document Architecture" is
obviously closely connected to a market.) Clear, colorless prose has the
advantage of being more stable...

> | On the other hand, I recognize (and share) Steve N's concern that
> | this could imply that the "SAM" (whatever name *it* ends up with)
> | doesn't do information aggregation...
> 
> Which would be utterly false.
>  
> | The more I think about it, the more I like the simplicity of the
> | following:
> | 
> | RM:   Topic Maps Metamodel
> | SAM:  Topic Maps Information Set
> 
> It works, though I don't really see why we couldn't have the even
> simpler: 
> 
>   RM:   Topic Map Metamodel
>   SAM:  Topic Map Model
>  
> | OK, so the acronyms are unpronounceable. But who's ever going to
> | need them?  Us, perhaps, especially during development. But we can
> | just talk about "the metamodel" and "the information set" once the
> | topic map context has been established (which is the default in our
> | discussions anyway...):
>
 
Unpronounceable is fine. Heck, I can even do SIDP! 

> Sure.
>  
> | All those in favour?
> 
> Too early. :)

Given that the text of neither the RM or the SAM is stable, I must agree
with Lars. (What's with this vehemenet agreement thing all of a
sudden?!?!)

As far as I'm concerned, we could table the discussion, use RM and SAM for
now, and raise the issue again closer to London. Heck, this is what
general entities are for ;-)

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------