[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position o nthe progress ion of Topic Map standards

[Ann Wrightson]

Having followed recent emails, I think Robert is showing us the way through
conceptually on the technical issue. We need to face the possibility that we
need something to fulfil the role that Jim describes for the RM *that is
completely different from the RM as currently proposed*.

I would be very interested to see outlines of suggested alternatives
(concise documents with rationale, rather than sketches in email postings)
to the present RM, to fulfil the underpinning role Jim describes. 
 
I also want to say strongly to anyone who is contemplating trying to kill
the current RM effort at this stage, that the attempt would be IMO an
irreponsible waste of WG time & emotional resources. The fate of the current
RM should rest rather on whether it does come up to the mark it has set for
itself, and IMO that should be let happen (i.e. left to happen or not).
However, the RM does need to be there to be square(d). The UK position,
while supportive of the less extreme form of the US position, also includes
a strong concern that (lack of) the RM should not hold up the TMDM.

Ann W.