[sc34wg3] Let's revert to N323!
Lars Marius Garshol
05 Feb 2003 12:51:21 +0100
* Patrick Durusau
| What do you think are the reasons for either including the RM as
| part of this multipart standard or it being a separate standard on
| its own?
Personally, I don't have a very strong opinion on this. I feel that
the RM in many ways goes beyond topic maps (ISO 13250 sense) and
offers a bridge to other technologies. For that reason it makes sense
to consider it separate.
| The RM is designed to define the essence of what it means to be a
| topic map and provides a heuristic device for evaluating topic map
| models and topic maps separate and apart from any particular data
| model or implementation or instance of a topic map.
I think what you write here argues both ways. On the one hand there is
a connection with topic maps, on the other hand there is a bridge to
other models. This is precisely the reason why I feel it makes more
sense to keep the RM outside 13250, but, again, I don't feel very
strongly about it.
What is far more important is what we say to the rest of the world.
So long as we present a consistent and reasonable picture of the
relationship between the RM and topic maps I don't think there is much
of a problem.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >