[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

Sam Hunting sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:43:33 -0500 (EST)


> I agree with Lars and Anthony, I think "meta-model"
> is a good term because it makes it clear
> that what used to be called the RM is
> actually a generator for models, including
> the one which is standardized for topic maps
> (aka SAM).

I think that one of the strengths of the RM prose is that it uses language
that is as connotation-free as possible while still (we hope) remaining
readable. That way we retain precision while avoiding words that are "all
things to all readers." "Metamodel" is one such word, I feel -- that may
be the source of its cringe-inducing character, to which Tony Coates
refers.

I don't say that the search for the right word has to end with
"Principles", but I am not sure it should end with meta-model. Nor do I
think it is much of a priority. (I guess I am turning into a nominalist!)

I can certainly log this as an issue if it raises serioius concerns among
the realists.

> As for the name of SAM, I think that
> Steve's suggestion to call it the
> "Standard Model" is quite appealing. It is
> attractive not only for computer-oriented
> users (developers), but also for 
> information model designers. "Data model"
> is more on the side of "developers"
> and the S(A)M should not be limited to them.
> It's also the "TM-Standard way" to represent
> knowledge. "Standard Model" covers all.
> 
> Michel

It's not up to me, but I like the sound of "Standard Model" a lot. Sounds
like quantum physics!


> ===================================
> Michel Biezunski
> Coolheads Consulting
> 402 85th Street #5C
> Brooklyn, New York 11209
> Email:mb@coolheads.com
> Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
> Voice: (718) 921-0901
> ==================================
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
> > [mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]On Behalf Of Lars Marius Garshol
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:37 AM
> > To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> > Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > * Steven R. Newcomb
> > | 
> > | 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.
> > 
> > Well, they both are models, but we do use them in different ways, and
> > I agree that calling them both models does make it sound as if they
> > compete in a way that is strictly speaking not correct. If we can come
> > up with new names I think that is acceptable, though we do run the
> > risk of confusing people with all these name changes.
> >  
> > | I believe the RM needs this change.  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.)
> > 
> > That is an idea. My immediate reaction is positive, though I'd like to
> > chew on it a bit before comitting.
> > 
> > One benefit is that we get rid of the overloading of the words
> > "ontology" and "application". So I do think it is better than the
> > current terminology.
> >  
> > | If, in Topic Maps Land, there is only a single definition for the
> > | term "TM Model," then it will be much easier to understand that:
> > | 
> > |       * 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.
> > 
> > In that case I think the suggestion that has been put forward, that
> > the RM really should be called a "metamodel" makes a lot of sense.
> > This is what a metamodel is. It would also make the RM/SAM
> > relationship clearer.
> > 
> > Of course, it would also create an expectation that the SAM actually
> > be represented using the RM, but in the mapping specification it will
> > be, so perhaps that will be enough to satisfy that expectation.
> >  
> > |       * Users really should demand conformance to the
> > |         Standard Model.  There is no competition
> > |         between different Models, at least not within
> > |         the realm of ISO Topic Maps standards.  There's
> > |         only one ISO Standard Model: the Standard one.
> > |         That's the one to use.
> > | 
> > |       * 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.
> > 
> > Again, I think this fits with the "metamodel"/"model".
> >  
> > | Personally, I'd really like to change the name of the SAM to "the
> > | Topic Maps Standard Model", or just "the Standard Model".  This name
> > | seems stronger, shorter, and more appropriate than the
> > | confusingly-qualified name, "Standard Application Model".
> > | ("Application" is the wrong word to be using, unless, when we say
> > | "Standard Application Model", we're talking about modelling a piece
> > | of software that's called the Standard Application.  Which we're
> > | not.)
> > 
> > Or we could just say "Topic Map Data Model". That's what it was meant
> > to be, and it certainly will make it clear that there's only one model
> > to deal with.
> >  
> > | 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.
> > 
> > I agree with the criticism others have put forward. This sounds like
> > guidelines for modelling topic maps more than what it really is. I
> > think "metamodel" is much more accurate.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sc34wg3 mailing list
> > sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> > http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> 

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------