[sc34wg3] Strawman draft of ISO 13250-1
Mary Nishikawa
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:52:18 +0900
Hi,
I am giving all of my feedback for the meeting on this mail list, since I
will not be in Philadelphia (sigh).
>* Steve Pepper
>|Please read the Editors' Note at the beginning of the document *very
>| carefully* before looking at the rest of the document!
>| It explains why we regard this draft as a strawman and what issues
>| we would like National Bodies to consider before the Philadelphia
>| meeting.
>*Lars Marius Garshol
>I'd like to repeat this, since it seems that nobody's understood what
>Steve meant. What is being sought is *not* comments on the substance
>of the document, because that is intended to be pure duplication of
>what's in TMDM anyway.
>What *is* being sought is comments on this particular editorial
>solution. That is, what do we want part 1 to do, and what do we want
>part 2 to do? Should we define "subject" in part 1 or in part 2, or
>(heaven forbid) both? Should part 1 just be a guide to 13250? Should
>it also include a topic map tutorial? Should that tutorial be
>normative?
So here is Steve's note and my comments on it.
*Steve Pepper
This draft of ISO 13250-1 has been produced as a strawman in order
facilitate a decision by the Working Group on what form this Part should
take. The original proposal for a Part 1 was motivated by the perceived
need for an introduction to the fundamental concepts of Topic Maps that
could be read in isolation from the definition of the Data Model (which is
the subject of Part 2).
*Mary
>> We are working on the *restatement* of ISO 13250. I remember discussing
(possibly in Balimore) that we should begin with ISO 13250, update that,
and make it part 1 plus including an introduction to the parts -- DM, XTM
syntax, CTM and RM and how they work together. This is what I expected the
draft to look like.
>> However, we really do need the normative definitions in the data model.
>> At a minimum for part 1, I think we would need an informative
description of what Topic Maps are and something like N323 "Guide to Topic
Map standards."
>> I guess if the parts can be published separately, it would seem that
we would need the definitions in both places (yuck) but, don't we want in
the end to have a coherent and complete document with parts and without
unnecessary repetition?
>> I have already expressed this some months ago, but I would like all of
the normative content to be in the data model.
*Steve Pepper
While there cannot be any doubt that the Data Model needs to be at the
heart of the standard, it should also be recognized that most of the
readers of 13250 will not be implementors. Those people need a clear
presentation of the concepts that is not intermixed with data modelling
concepts like item types and properties.
*Mary
>> I also mentioned this before too, but there is a need for something
like Tim Bray's notes on the W3C XML 1.0 Recommendation. OK, I read Tim's
notes first and then I was able to take a crack at the standard. So, how
many people did read that one, and, was it necessary? Probably not. There
were others around like Tim Bray to explain it later.
>> Tim's notes were not part of the standard though. I think that this is
important to discuss, since we need to examine what we are producing as
standards, and we need to do a kind of comparative *benchmarking* so to speak.
*Steve Pepper
The problem that has to be solved is how to reconcile these two needs
without introducing redundancy. This draft is an attempt on the part of the
editors of Part 1 to show what the solution might look like. It was
deliberately written without reference to the current draft of Part 2, in
order to be able to assess the validity of the approach originally
envisaged. (It was also left incomplete in order not to spend unnecessary
time.)
There is now a large amount of overlap between Parts 1 and 2, but this was
to be expected. The questions we wished to raise, and hope to have answered
at the Philadelphia meeting of WG3, are the following:Is there, in fact, a
need for a formal, normative presentation of the fundamental concepts of
Topic Maps, presented in isolation from the definition of the data model?
*Mary -- No there is no need.
*Steve
Is it possible, by carefully moving some pieces of text that describe
fundamental concepts from Part 2 to Part 1 (e.g. 5.5.1 and 5.5.2), to avoid
unnecessary redundancy?
*Mary
No, I don't go for this, because it would weaken the content of the DM and
the normative defintions are necessary there.
An implementor should not need to read through part 1 to get the
definitions in order to understand what the terminology means in part 2.
*Steve
Is there a need for an annex containing an informal tutorial, along the
lines of that in the XTM specification?
*Mary
Yes, there is a need, but whether it should be in the standard is debatable.
*Steve
A decision not to include a separate presentation of the fundamental
concepts will call the need for a separate Part 1 into question.
*Mary
Part 1 could then be a description of all of the other parts -- a map of
where to go for the normative information. This part 1 could include the
informative annex -- a tutorial if it is seen as necessary.
*Steve
The minutes of the Montreal meeting of WG3 recommended the editors to
follow the model of ISO 8879, which includes a tutorial in Annex A. We wish
to point out that this model is only partly relevant, since the annex in
question actually contains a reprint of a rather old paper describing the
general principles of generic markup, rather than a tutorial based on the
standard. For the purpose of this strawman, we have simply copied the
Gentle Introduction from the XTM Specification. If a decision is taken to
include such a tutorial, we envisage a rewrite that contains more syntax
examples and is more in line with the concepts as currently defined and
understood by WG3.
*Mary
Yes, we really do need this, but as I said, do we need it in the standard?
If we do have it, then it can only be an informative annex. I think that
eveyone agrees with this.
It could be an annex of part 1, or I could even see it as an annex to part
3 Syntax specification. Then Part 1 would only be the guide to the standard.
*Steve
N.B. Since the current document is just a strawman, no attempt has been
made to ensure that it follows the latest ISO rules in terms of document
structure.
*Mary
Sure, no problem :)
Cheers,
Mary
P.S. I will comment later on the DM and the RM requirements.