[sc34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO 13250
Mon, 14 Apr 2003 06:09:52 -0400
Marc de Graauw wrote:
>| Our experience in Norway is that industry demand for topic
>| maps is exploding.
>| One other reason why we are not on a hurry is that
>| TM is already an established standard. It is perceived
>| as such, and the fact that there is a new version in
>| preparation is good. We are not missing opportunities
>| of adoptions by not being ready yet with a new version.
>Unfortunately in the Netherlands we are not in Norway's lucky position. Last
>fall I started a Topic Maps Special Interest Group. It has over 30 members,
>so there is a sufficient interest in Topic Maps in the Netherlands. In spite
>of this interest, we found very few projects being done or being planned
>with Topic Maps. Invariably the reason given by our SIG members was the lack
>of a standard Schema language.
You seem to be mixing two issues in your post. One is the lack of a
"standard Schema language" and the other is the need for TMCL/TMQL. Are
both seen as problems? Noting that the SAM proposal would not answer the
problem of lack of a Schema language.
>So we _are_ missing opportunities here in the
>Netherlands. In fact, we took a look at RDF/OWL recently and there was a
>general feeling that although Topic Maps do have a better conceptual basis
>(though not _that_ much better) RDF/OWL are simply moving at a pace which
>make it likely to be the default choice at the moment. I feel that if we do
>not move forward with TMCL/TMQL very rapidly Topic Maps will end up being a
>minor technology in the Netherlands.
I don't think anyone is reluctanct to move forward (quickly or
otherwise) with TMCL/TMQL but the question is on what basis? The voiced
need for progress would seem to me to be a driver to forge consensus,
but consensus is not something that can be achieved by marginalizing any
contributions to the end product.
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps