[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* James David Mason
|
| Something else to think about when we play with names: We're writing
| standards. Do the names we give to standards say anything about what
| conforms to them?

I thought the conformance section was the only normative word on that?
 
| I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
| wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important,
| valuable information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering
| again whether this is a standard or a technical report. Although
| much of the language is about "must", which is standards-like, there
| is also "should" language, "may" language, "may or may not"
| language, and discussion about what developers of TMs need to think
| about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document specify or
| interpret?

* Steven R. Newcomb
|
| It specifies. If it only interprets, then its constraints are
| optional, and we abandon the idea that "Topic Maps" means reliable,
| predictable, ontology-neutral knowledge aggregation.

I find this answer interesting, but incomplete. What does it specify?
The behaviour of Reference Model processors, that is, a class of
software products? The structure of a certain class of graphs? Or
something else? 

How would I verify whether a given piece of software conforms to the
RM? Does it even make sense to phrase the question? In the same way,
how do I verify whether a given piece of information conforms to the
RM? And is that question meaningful?

I know what the answer to these is for the SAM, but for the RM I must
confess that I have no idea, and in my opinion standards are only
about one single thing: drawing the line between conformance and
non-conformance. A standard that doesn't do that isn't a standard, in
my opinion.

* James David Mason
|
| Another way of asking the question about what sorts of documents the
| RM and SAM are is to ask who the audience is. Are we writing these
| things for code writers or end users? 

I'd say we are writing them for implementors, those who need to be
able to assess the conformance of implementations, and for technical
experts who want the definitive word on what topic maps are and how
they work.

| That is to say, are we specifying the actions of a TM engine and the
| interchange formats for TM data, or are we marketing TMs/trying to
| help people who want to create TMs? At the moment, those two
| audiences are sometimes almost the same (that is to say, ourselves),
| but what about 5 years down the road? We need the information in
| both the RM and the SAM, but we need to understand how we need it.

import random
for x in range(1000):
  print random.choice(["Yes!", "Right on!", "Exactly!", "Agreed!"])
 
It seems to me that we should seriously consider the route that the
W3C has taken, which is to have primers that are separate from the
actual specifications. This makes it possible to have specifications
that are real specifications (as opposed to vague mishmashes that
anyone can interpret just as they please) while at the same time
having definitive tutorial texts.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >