Again, I would prefer to say "expressed" rather than "modeled" because I
am not sure that modeling is in the scope of the RM (at least when
modeling is understood as a current software engineering practice.) Then
again, if modeling == abstraction, well, then indeed one does model with
the RM. But who would choose to model in assembly language when they had a
language more fit to the purpose?[1])

It's confusing to call both the SAM and the RM
"Models", because they're very different things; the
term "Model" doesn't mean the same thing in both names.
It gives people the mistaken impression that they have
to decide whether to use the "Standard" model or the
"Reference" model -- that somehow the two things are in
competition with each other, which is not only absurd,
but also potentially self-defeating.

I think the RM
should be using the term "TM Model" instead of the term
"TM Application", wherever that term appears.  (Which
is everywhere in the RM.)
...
* A TM Model (such as the Standard Model) is not
a piece of software.  Software can *implement*
a Model, but a Model is not software.

If, as you claim
>       * The RM merely provides a platform or framework
>         for the definitions of TM Models, and it is not
>         itself in any sense a "TM Model", as we intend
>         that term to be understood.
then it seems that the response to
> So what should be the new name of the RM?  I'm hereby
> proposing "TM Modeling Principles".  We'll "test drive"
> this name in the next iteration of the RM, to see if
> we like it.
must be that it is the Topic Map Metamodel. What else can you call something
that is a "platform for the definition of TM Models"?
To me Topic Map Modelling Principles would be a guide to "How to write topic
map models", not a set of rules that models can be built on.

I (and others) are more concerned with whether the words "model" and
"metamodel" are meaningful and useful to do the work we have to do.
Given the lamentable record of language abuse in the IT industry outside
of ISO, the burden of proof is on the "metamodel" advocates to prove their
case by pointing to generally accepted definitions of the two terms that
they propose.
Google gives me http://www.metamodel.com/ right away -- looks like the
term is from the world of UML practitioners. If so, where do we go in that
world to get the terms and definitions?

I'm really pleased that the "IAM" acronym seems to have
gone away. It's hard enough, on this side of the water, to convince people
that topic maps aren't some sort of cult without uttering what some could
interpret as a reference to Exodus 3:14 every time I refer to one of our
standards using its name in short form.

I also concur with Mary's suggestion about singular/plural usage. Thus we
should make a choice about whether the titles appear as:
*	Topic Map Reference Model
or
*	Reference Model for Topic Maps
or, should we choose to play with the formal cover of the standard,
*	Information Technology - Topic Maps - Reference Model
And likewise in running text we should talk about the "Topic Map Reference
Model" or the "Reference Model for Topic Maps" but not the "Topic Maps
Reference Model".