[sc34wg3] RM workshop agenda

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Thanks for the quick response!

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Patrick Durusau
> | 
<snip>
>  
> | I will try to crank something out in the morning before I leave but
> | I would suggest something along the following lines:
> | 
> | 1. Requirements for a reference model (anyone agree with should start
> |    with the prior draft we composed in Montreal last summer?)
> | 
> | 2. Quick overview (and I do mean quick) of the various proposals in
> |    light of #1 (Perhaps spend the morning, if that long on #1 and say
> |    30 minutes on each proposal in the early afternoon?)
> | 
> | Think that such a process should put us in a position of having a
> | collective sense of where we all are on the reference model question.
> 
> I think that sounds good. I think the last requirements draft will
> work for you & SRN, but I'm not sure it will work for anyone else. It
> may be that point 1 will actually take up the whole workshop. We'll
> see. (For my take on the requirements, see the four bullet points at
> the start of my proposal.)
>  

I may have been unclear. I was referring to the list of requirements 
that WG3 drafted last summer, not the restatement of them by SteveN and 
myself. As I recall, you were working the keyboard.

Your position on the requirements may have changed since that time but I 
am not sure we should simply throw the requirements process back open to 
start from scratch once again. Well, assuming that delay is something we 
want to avoid.

Just a couple of quick comments on your four points:

>     *
> 
>       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.

I think part of my disagreement centers in your language "...author's 
search for an efficient representation of topic maps....". (in Background)

Personally I don't view ISO 13250 as having a goal of efficiently 
representing topic maps, that representation being the province of 
implementers who will compete with each other for better, faster, 
quicker implementations.

What is a goal for ISO 13250 (personal view, not pronouncement from on 
high) is to have an implementation neutral model of topic maps, on which 
implementers can build syntaxes (like XTM, AsTMa, LTM), specific data 
models (like the TMDM), and even specific query and constraint languages 
(which of necessity are build against specific data models).

I am really tired and will probably be going out with my boss tonight 
but perhaps we can exchange a few posts before Montreal on the the 
"implementation neutral" issue before the meeting?

Realize that you may wish to term the TMDM "implementation neutral" as 
well so we will need to find some other term to describe what I am 
trying to say.

Just thinking it is best if we at least agree that we don't mean the 
same thing by a term, that we can search for some way to avoid being 
confused by our differing usage of the same term. (We have enough other 
stuff to disagree about without stopping at the easy ones.)

Well, about dinner time so this will be my last post for a little while.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick




-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!