[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Lars Marius Garshol]

I'm not happy with my previous reply, and would like to try again.
Michel, I feel that you started this discussion in a very good way,
but that we've drifted off from the productive part to becoming more
personal and I'd like to stop that. Part of the reason is obviously
mine, because some of the things you've said have really annoyed me,
and that's caused us to focus on that instead of what we should focus
on. 

So, please ignore the previous email. What I'd like to say is
summarized here, and what is left out is not really important.


--- TMCL

We have actually made decisions, and they are written up in N0226 and
N0278. We can change our minds, but what's done so far is contained in
those two documents.

The people on tmcl-wg are about to start work on a description of what
TMCL is going to be and also a requirements document. If you care
about TMCL I think you should join that mailing list to participate in
that work. This discussion is about the TMCL requirements, so I do
think you should make your views known as part of the process.

One major decision taken in Orlando was that TMCL would be specified
in terms of the SAM. If you want to change that you really need to
state so loud and clear. And please bear in mind that it will have to
be built on top of either the RM or the SAM. There are no other
choices. 

BTW, I'm surprised that you focus on TMCL the way you do. Isn't TMQL
equally important, and doesn't it have much the same issues?


-- RM

I don't really understand why a 1%/99% (RM/app) division of
constraints makes sense. The application will have to specify the bulk
of the conformance requirements anyway, so why not everything? It
doesn't really make sense to require people to read two specs, does
it?


--- SAM

I'm glad to hear you say that you think the XTM model is all you are
ever likely to need. I feel the same way. I do find your mention of 
user requirements not met by the SAM/XTM model disturbing, so I would
*very* much like to hear what they are. We are supposed to finish it
soon, so it would be good to hear them before it's too late.

As to why the SAM-RM mapping is difficult, please ask SRN to repeat
his statements about it. He's struggling with those right now, and
sent me a pretty good explanation of what he thinks is difficult.

As to what it's supposed to be: if you don't feel you know I would
very much like to hear what it is you are uncertain of. I've explained
my view of it many times, so I doubt there's any point in repeating
that one more time without getting some input from you about what it
is that is unclear.


--- ISO 13250:2000 and XTM

This is the past, and I'm not sure there's any point in discussing it
much. The facts are that

 - neither specification provided what was necessary for interoperable
   implementations and documents, and

 - XTM 1.0 made changes to ISO 13250 that were not backwards
   compatible.

Any attempt to tell me that this is so is just going to make me very
angry, so please don't bother to try. It's better to just leave this
whole issue alone.

Of course, fixing this is what the SAM is all about, and I hope we can
soon finish that and move on to new work, such as TMCL and TMQL.

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