[sc34wg3] Strawman draft of ISO 13250-1

[Mary Nishikawa]

Patrick,

I think you misunderstood the context of the first part I wrote and I think 
we agree :)
I put back in what you took out.

>>*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.

*Mary
 >> 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.

>>*Patrick
>As I indicated in a post to Lars, I don't hold the ISO format up as a 
>model of explanation but I also don't think that a standard is the place 
>for an introduction to the "fundamental concepts." At least not in the 
>sense that Pepper has proposed for Part 1.
>Perhaps it may simply be a divergence in what we consider to be the proper 
>"scope" of a standard but to me a standard sets forth what is being 
>standardized with a great deal of rigor and either in annexes or other 
>publications does the introduction to "fundamental concepts." The purpose, 
>to me at any rate, of the standard is to communicate with a great deal of 
>precision what is being standardized.

I think we agree Patrick.

>>  >> 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.
>Hardly possible for all the "normative content" to be in the data model is 
>it?

OK, I meant *normative definitions* and normative content for the data 
itself.  Here, I am only comparing parts 1 and 2. Of course, parts 3 and 4 
(Syntaxes will have their own normative sections.)

>We already have separate parts on a constraint and query language, which I 
>have been assuming would be normative as well, at least for the parts they 
>address.

Of course, but we are talking about the project 13250, and I only said 
*normative definitions* for ISO 13250.  The constraint and query languages 
are related, but separate content.

>>*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.

*Patrick
>Like your example of Tim Bray's notes and take your point that it was not 
>part of the standard proper.

Good, glad we agree on this.

>>*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.

*Patrick
>Agree strongly.

Good to hear.

>>*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.

*Patrick
>Agree strongly.

Good.


>>*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.


*Patrick
>I would favor having it elsewhere. There are other publication mechanisms 
>within ISO, technical reports for example, that bear the imprimatur of the 
>committee but are not "standards."

I agree. It could be published as a technical note.

>>*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.
>I think Mary's description of part one as being a description of all the 
>other parts is closer to what I would think is the proper content for part 
>1. I would put the tutorial as an annex to the entire restatement.

I am not sure how that would be published though. It seems that the annex 
would need to be appended to one of the parts.  It would then look like a 
Technical note, maybe? It could also be a normative annex to part 3, the 
XTM syntax, or published as a separate TN.

>Note that in partial reply to one of the questions Lars raises, I don't 
>think such a tutorial could ever be "normative" in the ISO sense of the 
>word. Topic maps are expressive enough that any tutorial would be 
>illustrative and not normative in terms of using topic maps. The normative 
>parts of the standard should set forth ALL the rules relevant for each 
>part and be entirely self-contained. As Mary notes above, implementors 
>should not have to hunt to additional normative portions elsewhere in the 
>standard.
>
>A definite negative on having definitions in two places. Not that I doubt
>that successful copy-n-paste is possible, but defintions are read in 
>the  context in which they occur and being defined in one place eliminates 
>one possible source of divergent interpretation.

Agreed.

>>*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.
>*Patrick
>I think Part 1 as a guide to the standard makes the most sense in terms of 
>ISO requirements.
>
>In in his original post Pepper notes that the standard will not only be 
>read by implementors but even assuming that is the case, I think our first 
>duty is to provide a clear and rigorous statement of the standard and 
>then, as Mary notes is necessary, provide further explanation either in an 
>annex or altogether separate material.
>
>If for no other reason, consider that focusing on developing the standard 
>leaves the aftermarket open for tutorials and publications that make the 
>clear, but difficult prose of the standard understandable. ;-)

Yes, exactly what I was thinking.

Cheers,
Mary