[sc34wg3] And yet another...

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Holger Rath

> | I am wondering how the TMRM people will react to your proposal.
> 
> So am I. :-)

Hi Lars,

before looking at the model at a detaled level, I'd again like to stress
what I consider to be the most important (and still unabswered) issue:

Youe write:

<quote>
This is a proposal for a Foundational Model for topic maps that is intended to meet the
following goals: 

     It should be simpler than TMDM.

     It should be able to fully represent TMDM without loss of information.

     It should be suitable as a common foundation for TMCL and TMQL.

     It should be sufficiently formal to appeal to an academic audience.

</quote>


Do you mean to say that the above goals are the goals the reference model part of
the standard should meet? And if the reference model meets them, then it is a good
model?

Honestly, I think this is far too weak if the intention is that Topic Maps as a 
paradigm are to have any significant impact in the field of data modeling and
information organisation.

I am deeply convinced that the purpose (the overall goal) of the paradigm as such
is the only source for real requirements that any structural model must meet.


IMHO, the 'flow of argumentation' must be:

"Topic Maps are a paradigm that is designed to solve this and that existing problem
and in doing so, it will have this and that benefit for users of the paradigm.
The abstract information structure that underlies all topic maps must be designed to
meet the requirements imposed be the overall goals of the paradigm. Therefore, this
abstract information structure is as follows...."

A precise statement on the goal of Topic Maps is the *only* source for evaluation
of any proposed underlying model.


So, why don't we define this overall goal of Topic Maps *first*?

Several things may happen:

1) We all agree

   Fine, then we'd have a clear means of reasoning why your model, Robert's or
   the current RM is best suited or why they are all missing the critical points.

2) We know what we think, but we totally disagree

   Less fine, but also ok. This will give us a basis for further discussion and
   IMHO reveal the real source of the disagreements over the last years.

3) We do not know what to say

   Bad! Without knowing what the paradigm is to achieve, how can we find an
   appropriate model? How can we ever argue, that what we propose (RM included)
   is sufficient, if we do not even know what it must be sufficient for?


So, would everyone mind to write down her or his understanding what this overall
goal is? I have never read nor heard anything that would give me a clue. Honestly.



<rant>
There is surely more to Topic Maps then doing data integration (merging)
on datasets that all share a common ontology (name,occurrence, class-instance,
superclass subclass)?!?

If this is all, then a published relational schema would have done the job.
</rant>


Jan



> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org