| By now, I'd hoped that issues of scope and identity should seem
| rather more commonplace. Consensus of what a Topic Map *is* is
| only the responsibility of SC34 within the scope of ISO. Topic
| Maps are a concept that ISO may publish as a standard, but what
| a Topic Map *is* is not controlled by ISO SC34, or by anyone.
Well, you are welcome to hold that opinion, of course, but to
me, the only meaningful notion of consensus on what a topic map
*is*, is whatever is enshrined in the standard. Nothing else
makes sense.
| The closest we had to a consensus was when we were all still
| working together as a community.
Since you weren't at the ISO meetings last week you cannot be
expected to know that we have moved closer to a consensus than
we have ever been since the ISO standard was originally published
in January 2000. Since then we have gone through a four-year
period of growing pains -- not unnatural with such a sprightly
baby as ISO 13250. During that period a lot of new people have
come on board and a lot of new viewpoints have been aired. We
have had passionate discussions between the syntax-heads and the
model freaks, and between the data modellers and the reference
modellers, but out of it all is emerging a new synthesis and a
deeper understanding that goes way beyond what we had before.
I am convinced that there will be overwhelming consensus on
all major outstanding issues six months from now and that we
will then move forward at a startling pace. Anyone wanting
to be part of this is very welcome indeed. People can get
involved in the work by contacting their local standards body.
(If you don't know how to do that, contact me directly and
I'll be happy to help.)
| While it may be considered as wishful thinking, I've debulleted
| the TMDM since there is demonstrably not a consensus yet that it
| represents a definition of Topic Maps either within ISO or the
| greater Topic Maps community. Publishing an ISO committee draft
| does not constitute any consensus on a definition of Topic Maps.
That is true. However, we have done more than publish a Committee
Draft. We have had that draft approved through international
ballot, which at the end of the day is the *only* way to claim
consensus in the ISO process.
| The TMDM and the TMRM as definitions of Topic Maps are currently
| at the same level of consensus in this regard: none.
As noted above, the TMDM is already at CD stage and WG3 voted
to move it to submit it for ballot as a DIS (Draft International
Standard). In the meantime we are arranging a workshop in order
help the TMRM catch up. The common goal of everyone at last
week's WG3 meeting (which by the way was the best attended WG
meeting ever) is to have the TMDM and TMRM move forward to
IS status as quickly as possible. If that's not a sign of an
emerging consensus, I don't know what is.
| So to answer Bernard's question, as I've already done (and you
| chose to ignore), the only two safe identifying documents are
| the existing standard ISO 13250 and the work of the Topic Map
| community as present in the XTM 1.0 Specification. At this time,
| everything else constitutes a work-in-progress.
Neither of these two documents is a published subect indicator
in the sense recommended by the OASIS committee, since neither
was published with the expressed intent of providing a subject
indicator for the concept of topic maps. There is, therefore,
no authoritative PSI available for the concept, which is what
the original question was about.
The new 13250 will (if the committee agrees with me) include
PSIs for this and all the other concepts in the standard.
Steve
--
Steve Pepper <pepper-76mms6M3oqTR7s880joybQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
|
