[sc34wg3] Re: Montreal meeting recommendations
Lars Marius Garshol
14 Sep 2001 16:04:53 +0200
* Steve Pepper
| I would like to ask the four editors mentioned (Steve, Michel, Lars
| Marius, and Graham) for their suggestions as to how we should
Since nobody else seems eager to do so, I'll bite.
I think the very first thing we must do is to flesh out the action
plan a bit more. The meeting recommendations give some directions, but
nowhere near enough. The way to solve this, IMHO, is to create a
requirements document, and Graham and I will create one for our model.
This should also cover its interaction with the PMTM4-derived model.
Some of the main questions we need to have answered right away are:
- which model should the XTM and ISO 13250 serialization and
deserialization be described in terms of?
- how do we agree on (and document!) our common terminology?
- how many documents should we maintain as part of this work?
(I know of three candidates: infoset-requirements, infoset-model,
and PMTM4-model. Are there more? Should there be fewer?)
- what should the mapping between the two models look like, and which
model document should contain it?
- to what extent should the models go into descriptions of the
meaning of topic map information? which of the models should do
- what is the relationship to the XTM 1.0 and ISO 13250
specifications to be? how much of these two specifications should
be replaced by the new model-based ones?
- which of the two models should TMCL and TMQL build on top of?
- where should the models go, once they are complete? Are they ISO
13250 2nd edition? Should they be a normative technical report?
Also, one question to SRN & MB that I personally have is: what is the
purpose of the core model? What are its goals? Why is it being written?
I know the PMTM4 document says something about this, but it's not
obvious that this text necessarily applies to the new situation.
Englightenment on this issue would be very much welcome.