[sc34wg3] Re: Backwards Compatability WAS: Public Interest and ISO WAS: [topicmapmail] <mergeMap> questions
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
> * Sam Hunting
> | OK. I can agree that issues with XTM shouldn't be raised for
> | frivolous reasons.
> There's a world of difference between issues and changes. Anyone
> should feel free to raise issues at any time. It's the adoption of
> changes that is controversial.
1. My reading of Murray's posting -- that is, the posting to which the
material you excerpt responds -- is that he (unlike, apparently, you)
was concerned with raising issues.
2. It seems strange to be able to raise problems, but then not be able
to address them.
> | So, what does "stability" mean in this context? Well, the apple
> | cart could be "stable" if it were unmoving in a ditch by the side
> | of the road. No one wants that. The apple cart could be "stable" if
> | it were stuck in the middle of the road and not going anywhere. No
> | one wants that. Or the apple cart could be "stable" if it were
> | making steady progress down the road -- taking apples to a market,
> | for example ;-) That's what I want, at least.
> You are misrepresenting the facts.
Gosh, I thought I was creating a metaphor!
> We have a specification (XTM 1.0),
> that specification is very clear on what should be done in the
> particular case under discussion, some people propose that a new
> specification should contradict it.
1. The "we" we are concerned with on this list is ISO. I take it that
you plan to propose to have ISO adopt the text of XTM 1.0 as is?
2. At least one reader disagrees with you (not me ;-) so if you go by
the expressed view of users, the text can't be *very* clear, eh?
> It is a fact that this will require just about every piece of topic
> map software there is to change.
Well, I accept that this is your strongly held view. Without having
balanced that cost against (say) benefits to information owners, the
public interest, and so forth, it's hard to know how the change would
net out for the "community" eh?
I understand and respect that you have a fiduciary responsibility to
your firm, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the world shares that
responsibility, does it?
> Representing this as stabilizing the apple cart is not accurate.
Oh? Say -- just as a hypothesis! -- that after discussion "we" agree
that the change nets out in a positive way, but it's reasonable to wait
for a later phase of developing the standard. That's stability -- the
cart's in motion toward a goal.
<!-- "Saving civilization through markup." -->
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.