[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* James David Mason
| 
| Either the RM conforms to 13250, or it's talking about something
| else that can't be called TMs.

Let's try the "facts on the ground"-approach. ISO 13250:2002 defines
two interchange syntaxes. The current RM draft defines a graph model.
As those texts stand right now there is no relation between them
whatsoever.

The current roadmap calls for the creation of documents that go
XTM->SAM and HyTM->SAM, and one that goes SAM->RM. Once that's done we
have a mapping from 13250 all the way to the RM. The RM still does not
conform to 13250, however, since 13250 conformance means one of two
things:

  a) to be a document that conforms with the HyTM syntax,

  b) to be an application that can "parse the interchange syntax
    (HyTM), identify the topic map constructs defined [...in 13250],
    and apply whatever processing the application designers considered
    appropriate ...".

Now the RM is neither a document nor an application, so 13250
conformance doesn't apply to it. Data that follows the HyTM->SAM->RM
can be said to conform to the RM, however.
 
| But we can't have an ISO/IEC standard in existence for some period
| of time, with people building software to support it and generating
| data to be interchanged/processed by that software, and then come
| back and say that there's something else that defines the
| standard. It's retrogression that will make us look like idiots.

I think this is the only thing we can do. ISO 13250 doesn't really
define anything much. Once you try to implement it you discover that
the questions raised by the text hugely outnumber the answers provided
by it. What *will* make us look like idiots is to keep 13250 as it is,
because conformance or non-conformance to it is really undecidable.
 
| The RM and the SAM are valuable. But we need to get clear what they
| are, and we need to get them done. 

I think we all agree what the SAM is. (At least I've heard no
dissenting voices.) I'm not sure there's any point in discussing what
the RM is, because I don't think we will agree. It's better to just
agree on what we want to do, and then do that.

| Quite frankly, we need to send them out for final ballot very
| soon. As a TM user (as opposed to a committee officer), I'd like to
| see these things done by the May meeting.

Yes. 

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