RM Glossary: was Re: [sc34wg3] what's the most basic issue?

[Patrick Durusau]

Greetings!

Another issue, although largely a practical one, is the need for a 
glossary for the RM. I have prepared a rather rough cut, that is far too 
inclusive, that should be appearing in the editor's draft "real soon 
now." For those who want a head start on working on what should (or 
should not) be in the glossary, here are is the first cut on possible 
terms:

A
a-node
AC
almalgamation
arc name
arcs
aspects of relationships
assertion
assertion subgraphs
assertion type
AT
built in subjects
built-in
built-in nodes
C
c-node
casting
Conferred property
conferred values
connected path
connected paths
connectedness
CR
Cx
definition requirements
endpoint types
fixed separator symbol
framework
fully merged
identical
interchange syntaxes
interchangeable topic map instance
isolated
merging process
multidimensional
node demanders
node type
node type name
nodes
nonconformance
OPs
oriented
Other Properties
property name
property value
property value type
R
reified
result node
role
role player
SIDP
situated
situation
situation features
SLUO
strongly-typed
subgraphs
subject
Subject Identity Discriminating Propertes
Subject Location Uniqueness Objective
Syntax Processing Model
T
t-node
TM Applications
topic map
Topic Map Applications
topic map components
topic map graph
topic map instance
topic space
typed
typed assertion
unplayed
unreified
untyped assertion
well formed
well-formed nodes
x-node
    

Some of the terms appear with plurals, which will be weeded out, etc.

Thanks!

Patrick

Steve Pepper wrote:

> I don't know if this is the most basic issue, but since SRN has asked
> us to state our positions, here goes (with no holds barred):
>
> At 20:44 28.01.2003 +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
>> * 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.
>>
>> * Lars Marius Garshol
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> This is also where I believe the value of the RM lies in the short
> term: As a kind of yard stick against which we can evaluate certain
> parts of the SAM and possibly reveal some inconsistencies.
>
> I've been part of the development of this standard long enough that
> I remember how we all thought about it back around 1998 and even earlier.
> I've seen how everyone's understanding (my own included) has developed
> and deepened in the time that has elapsed since:
>
> For example, I saw the emerging realisation that occurrences were
> really just specialised associations; followed by first the denial
> and then the acceptance (at least by many) that names could be regarded
> as specialized occurrences. (It's strange to look back and realise how
> little we understood even as 13250 went to press :-)
>
> If we'd realised things like that in time, we might not have ended
> up with names that didn't have types (but did have variants), and
> occurrences that didn't have variants but did have types.
>
> In just the same way it seems to me that the RM *may* help us
> uncover inconsistencies in the SAM - and fix them before we go to
> publication.
>
> But that, to me, is the *only* value that the RM has in the short
> term.
>
> In the longer term, I think the RM *may* help lead us beyond topic
> maps and take us to the next level (which may be the level at which
> not a unification but a *synthesis* of topic maps, RDF and other things
> takes place). I say that because I do recognise that there are some
> valuable insights in the RM as it is today.
>
> However, I think the RM is very far from being "cooked". Very far
> indeed. If it really is the "assembly language" of topic maps, then
> I would expect a compactness and elegance that transcends even the
> TAO model, and that I do not see at the moment. In fact, the RM seems
> to become less compact and less elegant at each iteration.
>
> It may be that the formalism is what is primarily at fault. Perhaps
> hypergraphs should be taken as the starting point, and maybe that will
> render all those clauses and tables unnecessary. I don't know.
>
> What I do know is that the RM as it stands
>
> (1) contains enough interesting insights that it *may* help clarify
> certain aspects of the SAM (even though those insights may not yet
> have found their ideal expression),
>
> (2) is quite obviously still a long way from prime time, and
>
> (3) has yet to be justified in terms of real user requirements.
>
> Finally, I am very sad that all the energy that has gone into the RM
> wasn't channelled into marketing and promoting topic maps as defined
> in 13250. If we'd pulled together and done that, I think the market
> acceptance of topic maps would be much greater than it is today.
>
> Steve
> -- 
> Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
> Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
> http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps