[sc34wg3] The missing link

[Steve Pepper]

At 22:14 07.03.2003 +0000, Martin Bryan wrote:
>Congratulations on the revised draft of RM4TM, which is much cleaner than
>previously and, therefore, easier to understand. However, there is one=
 thing
>that is detracting from its comprehensibility: there is no "proof of the
>pudding". You have not proven that it is possible to describe either XTM or
>HyTM (or any alternative syntax) using RM4TM. To do this you need to add an
>annex that contains a complete Syntax Processing Model for an existing TM
>syntax that can be used to prove that you can describe all of the=
 components
>of that syntax.

I disagree with this. We don't need a Syntax Processing Model.

Look at the Roadmap again:

    http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm

The XTM and HyTM syntaxes are to be specified in terms of the SAM, not the
RM.

What we need is something that relates the SAM to the RM. I believe Steve
Newcomb is working on such a mapping, although we haven't heard from him
for a while...

In addition, I would like to see a mapping from some other "topic map
application" (call it YAAM*) to the RM. Provided the YAAM was sufficiently
different from the SAM that it could not be mapped easily to the latter,
a mapping from it to the RM would demonstrate in practice the utility
of the RM as a meta-model.

Does anyone have a suitable candidate for the role of YAAM?

Steve

* YAAM: Yet Another Application Model. Pronounced 'yom'. Alternative
spelling (Danish and Norwegian only): Y=C5M.


--
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