[sc34wg3] One standard or several?

[Patrick Durusau]

Jim,

Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:

>I've already declared myself to be of the one standard, multiple parts
>school. If it defines Topic Maps, it ought to be one standard. If something
>has to conform to it (whether for interchange syntax or interpretation of
>what do do when one gets something in that syntax), it needs to be one
>standard.
>
Just a quick note before I bounce into a conference call on digital rights!

Lest silence be construed as agreement, I would note that I disagree 
with Lars' post on the various documents that are extant in the WG3. 
Both in substance and tone.

I don't think I can further the current discussion in "off the cuff" 
email and plan on posting a somewhat longer composition by late this 
week suggesting one possible view that would result in a "one standard, 
multiple parts" solution.

I have no illusions about that view being accepted "as is" or even 
substantially correct. I do think we need to move to a more detailed and 
*common* understanding of the various parts of an eventual topic map 
standard. Hopefully that view will be a step towards a more nuanced view 
of the possible parts and with the views of all the other participants 
in this discussion, will result in that *common*  understanding. (Noting 
that Mrs. Slocombe's (Are You Being Served?), "...and I am unanimous in 
this...," position is probably not a helpful one in this discussion.)

Patrick




>
>
>Lars Marius offers several options below. Like him, I think some of them
>(particularly "a" and "b") are pretty bad. His "c" takes us back to where we
>were in 2000. His "d" is where I thought we were headed until Charles
>started pushing the multiple standards bit. It's what we drafted the NP for,
>though we eventually checked a different box about what the results should
>be. I agree that "e" would be a mess. I don't think we have an option to do
>"f" (it's possible to turn a failed DIS into a TR, as WG2 did with Font
>Services, but not to turn a published IS into one).
>
>If what Lars Marius says in one of his most recent messages about the
>relationship of the current syntaxes to SAM and thence to RM is accepted, I
>think we can get to "d" in steps. That is to say, we can publish the SAM and
>RM, then revise the current 13250 and split it into syntax, tutorial,
>conformance, and whatever else. Until then, the current 13250 can stay where
>it is, and people can conform to it as best they can.
>
>I really don't like multiple standards, particularly if there are strong
>dependencies among them. It's one thing to say, for example, that the
>interchange syntax for some data structure makes normative reference to
>UNICODE, a separate standard, and an entirely different sort of thing to say
>that the semantics of an interchange syntax are in a standard with a
>different number.
>
>Jim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:larsga@garshol.priv.no]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:32 AM
>To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] One standard or several?
>
><snip>
>
>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. 
>_______________________________________________
>sc34wg3 mailing list
>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu