[sc34wg3] Structuring the topic map standards

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steve Pepper
| 
| In N372, the following structure is suggested:
| 
|    * ISO 13250: Topic Maps Basic concepts.
|                 Annexes for XTM, HyTM.
|    * ISO xxxxx: Topic Maps Data Model (SAM)
|                 Annexes for deserialization of XTM (and HyTM), and
|                 mapping to Topic Maps Reference Model.

This part I am unhappy with, for the following reasons:

 a) splits the definition of the concepts off from the data model that
    determines their structure and gives us an ISO 13250 which does
    not actually provide all the criteria for conformance; in fact,
    the real standard will be the second one,

 b) it duplicates the same content across two different standards, so
    that if we want to change topic maps we will have to change both
    standards, and anyone wanting to implement this will have to
    follow two different and possibly contradictory standards, and

 c) it lumps the syntaxes in with the SAM, which is not the cleanest
    way to organize things, given that there may be more syntaxes to
    come,

 d) it puts the SAM and its RM mapping into the same document, which
    means that the SAM can't be published before the RM is finished.

Not only am I unhappy with it, but I also see no point in this
proposed structure. It actually runs counter to the advice Charles
gave you (the second part, the real standard, will be long, awkwardly
organized, and an even more horrible read than it needs to be), and
the only thing to recommend it is that there will be a definitive
introduction to the topic map standards.

However, I think that's better achieved through a separate document
which actually aims to teach the use of topic maps the way the W3C
primer documents do. Doing it that way will give us a better structure
for the standards, and that the same time give us a better tutorial
because the tutorial will actually be written as a tutorial.

|    * ISO xxxxx: Topic Maps Information Aggregation Model (RM)
|    * ISO xxxxx: Topic Maps Conformance Canonicalization syntax.
|    * ISO 18048: Topic Maps Query Language
|    * ISO 19756: Topic Maps Constraint Language

This part I think is OK, though as stated before I would prefer a
multi-part 13250. I actually think the old roadmap was exactly what we
wanted, and that we should go back to it.

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