[sc34wg3] what's the most basic issue?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steven R. Newcomb
| 
| [what *is* the RM?]
|
| I'm willing to start there, if everyone else is.  It begs the
| question: what are the various positions on this issue?  It would be
| good to understand what they are, exactly.

Yes, it definitely would.

| How do you feel about the idea of each of us outlining our own
| positions?

Let's just do it. I don't see any reason to establish rules or
timelines for the process first; let's just *start*.

In the spirit (I hope) of what you started I'll kick off with my own
view: the RM is whatever SRN thinks it is. You started it, and you are
very clearly the driving force behind the RM work. So as far as I can
tell, if you say the RM is X that's what it is. So what I would like
to hear is what *you* think it is.

Now, I suppose what you meant is just as much what each of us thinks
it *should* be. "Serious and open-minded introspection," you said.
Well, personally I am not very interested in the RM. It has been
proposed that it can be used as a kind of conceptual model or
reference model for topic maps, and I find that mildly appealing. I
don't mind if people go off and do that.

To me, what matters is getting a firm foundation for specifying what
topic maps are in such a way that we can expect to have interoperable
implementations and also in such a way that we have something to build
TMCL and TMQL on. As far as I am concerned, SAM provides this together
with the new syntax specifications, and I'm satisfied with that.

So in a sense, the answer to your implicit question is that it's not
so important to me what the RM is so long as it does not get in the
way of the other work. 

If anyone wonders why I want to see the SAM play this role as opposed
to the RM, ask, and I'll tell you, but I've said it many times before,
so I don't want to repeat it unecessarily.

| The purpose of this exercise would be *only* to allow all of us to
| put our agendas on the table; it would not decide anything, and our
| positions must not be phrased as arguments against what we believe
| to be the position of any other.  We must only speak for ourselves,
| letting others speak for themselves.

I tried to do that know, but I'm not sure I succeeded in doing what
you intended. If not, tell me.
 
| This process may be time-consuming.  It will probably require some
| serious and open-minded introspection.  It may well lead to a public
| mutual examination and evaluation of our personal goals and beliefs,
| which may be difficult for each of us, personally -- kind of like
| acting in a nude scene in a movie.

My main reaction to this is that I would like us to not spend forever
on introspection. We have work to do. Of course, I realize we are
having problems coming up with a common vision, and I do appreciate
that it would be good if we could do something about that. As for
"nude acting", I don't mind. I don't have anything to hide.

| So I guess one good question, at this point, is:
| 
|   "What is each of us willing to sacrifice on the altar of the
|   Goddess of Consensus, in order to propitiate her for the welfare
|   and benefit of the Topic Maps International Standard?"

I'm not sure that question is answerable. If you mean "are there any
options that I would be unwilling to accept, even if I were the only
person to oppose it?" then the answer is clearly "yes".
 
| If we are willing to do this exercise, then we accept that it might
| not be easy, fast, or painless.  In this exercise, the person who
| sincerely says, "Let's dig deeper" is always right; the person who
| says, "I'm sick of this; this is absurd," is always the one who is
| abandoning the effort to achieve consensus.  It's an exercise for
| long-distance runners.  (I wouldn't suggest this exercise, were it
| not for the fact that we're all proven long-distance runners.)

I don't know, Steve. Why do you think this elaborate set-up is
necessary? Can't we just start talking instead? It seems pretty clear
to me that there may come a point where continuing the introspective
discussion *will* be absurd. I'm happy to have a frank and open
discussion, so let's just do that, and see where it takes us.

It's not that I want to reject what seems like an outstretched hand,
it's just that I'm impatient with all this talk about what we *might*
do. Let's just *do* it!

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