[sc34wg3] One standard or several?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steve Pepper
|
| N323 - sometimes erroneously called the "roadmap", in fact entitled
| "Guide to the topic map standardization" discusses the various
| pieces of the topic map family of standards and how they relate to
| each other.

I think what we should do is to continue this discussion that you've
now started until we agree, then produce a new version og N323 that
documents our new agreement.
 
| Anyone wishing to present principled arguments for or against
| multiple standards (as opposed to a multipart standard) is
| encouraged to do so in this thread. If no objections are heard, I
| will assume that (for the present) the consensus goes in this
| direction.

I liked the multipart approach because it seemed clean and easy, and
because the components N323 proposes to put in a single standard all
seem (to me) to belong in the core standard.  It's not a big deal for
me, however.

The problem I see with multiple standards is what is going to become
of ISO 13250. These are the possibilities I can think of:

 a) Make the RM be 13250. This is likely to confuse people, as the
    current 13250 and the RM are only distant relations of one
    another, and other parts of the family are much closer to what
    used to be 13250.

 b) Make the SAM be 13250. This has the same problem, although less
    so.

 c) Make the HyTM syntax specification be 13250. This would make 13250
    continue to specify the same thing, but it would no longer stand
    on its own.

 d) Withdraw 13250, as it will be replaced by new and better
    specifications.

 e) Keep 13250 pretty much as it is. This means turning what is
    essentially a tutorial into a normative text with hairy relations
    to the other standard. I think this option is technically and
    editorially a horrible option, and find it very difficult to live
    with. 

 f) Keep 13250 pretty much as it is, but turn it into a technical
    report that is basically a technical topic map tutorial, pretty
    much like XTM 1.0, but with more explanations.

Personally, I don't like any of these options, but I do think f) is
the best choice, provided ISO procedure actually allows it. I think a
multipart standard is much cleaner, and I don't think there is any
difference in marketing between the two approaches. 

What does matter is:

  a) whether the standards are available on the web,

  b) whether the individual pieces are long or short, and readable or
     unreadable, and

  c) whether people manage to navigate the different pieces.

As far as I can see, going multipart or single-part does not affect
this in the slightest (though option e) will seriously damage
readability).  

My conclusion is that what N323 describes is the right way to go about
this. If the rest of you disagree I think we should choose f) as the
lesser of many evils.

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