[sc34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO 13250

Mary Nishikawa sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:20:22 +0900

Hi Michel.

>These are very good news. To add to the picture, let me add that
>there is a growing interest in the US for topic maps, especially
>within the government and open source communities. I have been
>invited to speak on topic maps in various occasions recently,
>including at a Government Web Services working group as well
>as in a conference on Open Standards/Open Source for National
>and local eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU. At that last
>conference, Sam Hunting did another presentation on topic maps.
>Steve Newcomb did recently a presentation at the Library of
>Congress also on topic maps.
>See www.web-services.gov and http://www.egovos.org/march-2003/index.htmlOpen
>for more details.
>We also have reasons to get excited on the perspectives
>for topic maps.

Good to hear.

> > I hope that the same exponential growth can happen in Japan.  The
> > leader of
> > the ZOPE users group in Japan is interested in topic maps and I
> > have tried
> > to be a bridge between the Norway and Japan ZOPE developers.
> > There is no documentation in Japanese, so it is hard for this to
> > go forward.
>Do you have any pointer on the Zope/TM-related projects?


> > It is not easy without a translation of the documents that are being
> > written now.
> > > > It is very important that SAM and XTM Syntax
> > > > move to CD.
> > >
> > >This is procedural.
> >
> > When a document goes to CD, it is important because then we
> > formally begin
> > the translation process.
>PMTM4 has been translated in Japanese by Naitto-san, and
>it was not at that time a CD.

I would guess that this was a big favor to you and it was not part of standard
procedures. I guess you own him more than a beer for this  :)

> > Michel you said, "I think when you qualify the SAM as a "very
> > robust piece
> > of computer science" you are exactly right."
> >
> > So, it is important to have SAM translated.
>Why don't you go forward and translate it right
>now? This is independent of the fact it is a CD.

Yeah, tomorrow Michel, I'll get right to it. :)

The translation that I am talking about is  "official" translation of an 
ISO  publication.
This is what we need for SAM.

There is a committee for this. The process begins when the document goes to CD.
We needs lots of planning and time to do a good job.

>If you consider that the document as it is can
>be helpful, I think it would be an excellent
>initiative to translate it right now.

Sure, of course :)

I am talking about the formal publication. This is important for Japan, and 
I am not only talking about the translation of the CD.
This is the setting up of the translation program so that we are ready to 
publish the Japanese document as close as possible
to the time of the final publication.

I think that we are really coming from two different worlds.  As an 
individual, I came to study topic maps, but as a Japan delegate, I have 
other obligations now, even though it is a kind of *volunteer* work. The 
Japanese government must contribute to ISO in proportion to their GNP. 
Schlumberger allows me to attend meeting during my work time. So my time 
is, so to speak,is a contribution by my company to these ISO efforts. That 
goes for the other delegates too.

>It doesn't prevent us to continue discussing
>whether the document as it is fulfills the
>various requirements that need to be taken
>into account.

Which requirements? Has something been documented somewhere that I don't 
know about? There have been various personal requirements that have been 
voiced, even here on this mail list, but not submitted to due process. If 
you have requirements, please submit them formally, otherwise they are only 
viewed as personal remarks.

>  It doesn't prevent us to continue
>trying to find the best possible way to combine
>the various efforts together so that topic maps
>work harmoniously at different levels, as expected.

Beginning to wonder if you are talking about models or people here :)

>But I am not sure that this is achievable
>by those, like Steve Pepper, who simply
>refuse the discussion. I think it would be
>simpler if those in the group who refuse
>to discuss simply refrain themselves to
>attend the meetings that are precisely
>made for these discussions to occur.

Michel, for the editor of a standard to say such a thing
about the convenor of the committee, was uncalled for
and quite unfortunate. I really don't want to continue
the discussion after this.