[sc34wg3] Revising the Agenda for London

Steve Pepper sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:42:59 +0200

At 09:46 25.04.2003 -0400, Michel Biezunski wrote:
>Steve Pepper:
> > If you have a proposal on any agenda items that could
> > or should be shortened or removed to make more room for
> > the RM, please say so, but please respect the fact that
> > many people have arranged their itineraries, put an
> > immense amount of work into producing documents for
> > discussion at the meeting, and even prepared slides, all
> > on the basis of an agenda proposal that was discussed
> > in this forum long ago.
>Here are my proposals...

Thank you. I can agree to some of them at this late date, but
others are too drastic.

>Friday May 2nd
>  - Postpone the discussion on the road map until the end of the meeting.
>    We will know better afterwards where we want to go. We should be
>    able to start directly working after one hour introduction, sorting
>    out the documents, etc. No need to discuss the roadmap before examining
>    the components in detail.

If we can cut this down to an hour, so much the better.

>  - Condense the discussion on XTM one hour instead of two.

This is not acceptable. XTM is a vital part of almost all current
topic map applications. It is impossible to cover the issues in
one hour. In fact, now that the list of issues is available (N399),
it is clear that even 2 hours is going to be far too short. So I
think any time saved on the introduction should be used on XTM, up
until lunch.

>PM HyTM - HyTM Syntax and Specification (3 hrs) Documents: N391
>  - Condense to 1 1/2 hour.

Also too little. As the original syntax in 13250, HyTM deserves
to be treated seriously. In particular, the apparent discrepancies
between HyTM and XTM should be ironed out at this meeting, including
facets, identity, scope, locators and mnemonics. We now have an
excellent first draft of the HyTM syntax specification that should
be given due attention at this meeting.

>  - We now would have 3 1/2 hours on Friday to discuss the TMM.

Given that the XTM and HyTM sessions cannot be shortened, there
will be not time for this. In any case, the Reference Model is
scheduled for Saturday afternoon, at the request of the four who
wrote it. It was apparently important to have it exactly then in
order that Jim could be present. (Jim will not be present on
Friday. Nor will Mary or Nikita, I believe.)

>Saturday May 3rd
>AM SC34 Plenary (2 hrs) Documents: N378, N379, N380, N381, N382
>TMCL - Topic Map Constraint Language (2 hrs) Documents: N4xx
>PM RM - Reference Model - Introduction and discussion (3 hrs) Documents:
>- Leave as it is.

I agree. Except that I am willing to extend the afternoon session
into the early evening if it seems to be productive.

>Sunday May 4th
>- Separate the afternoon session in 2 parts:
>   1. CXTM only - 1 1/2 hour
>   2. Conformance issues for SAM, TMM and CXTM (1 1/2 hour)

This might make sense. Certainly there seems to be dependencies
between conformance to XTM, HyTM, CXTM and the SAM. Whether it
makes sense to include the Reference Model in this discussion
remains to be seen. Hopefully this will be clarified during the
Saturday afternoon session.

>Monday May 5th
>All day TMQL - Topic Map Query Language - Workshop (5 hrs) Documents: N249,
>tolog, AsTMa
>WG Plenary: Recommendations for SC34 (2 hrs)
>- Probably TMQL could be abridged one hour (4 hours instead of 5). That
>   would leave us 1 hour more to discuss about the roadmap that is part
>   of the Recommendations for SC34 and that we would have skipped on
>   the first day. On Monday we should have a clearer idea where we
>   want to go.

TMQL has already been shortened from a full-day to 5 hours. A full
program has been prepared for the kick-off and I doubt if those
responsible will want to make do with less time. No doubt we will
hear from them in due course.

In one sense I would like to have more than 2 hours for discussing
the recommendations, but to be honest, I'm not sure if more time
will make us more productive. By this stage in the proceedings we
should already be close enough to enable a consensus to be reached
in two hours, or else we are still so far apart that nothing more
will be achieved in an extra hour.

My conclusion, then, is that the agenda has to be left as is. We
can allow some flexibility between sessions, and we should be
prepared to let the Saturday afternoon session extend beyond 3 hours
if it is proving productive.

This is my opinion both as convenor and HoD for Norway. Mary has
already spoken up on behalf of Japan. If other HoD's or people
responsible for leading sessions have an opinion on this, they
should speak up in the next day or so, because I don't intend to
spend half of Friday arguing about the agenda.

Steve Pepper, Ontopian