[sc34wg3] Draft agenda for Montreal meeting

Mason, James David (MXM) sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:59:23 -0400

Just looking at things from the administrative point of view:

OASIS has the full liaison connection with SC34 itself, which means they can
comment on any SC34 project, not just TMs. (Remember, they got into SC34
primarily over RELAX NG.) Karl Best is responsible for their end of the
liaison, and so he's nominally responsible for appointing delegates to SC34
and its WGs; in practice this seems to be delegated. We also have the right
to comment, as SC34, on relevant OASIS projects.

>From the SC34 side, I generally accept that any OASIS member (whether from a
TM committee or not) is welcome at any SC34 or WG meeting. I'm not
responsible for determining whether opinons expressed are personal or
officially from OASIS.

When we started this liaison, there seemed to be an informan understanding
that in the area of TMs, SC34 would be responsible for standardization and
OASIS would work on applications, support, and promotion. This is not
binding; it just seemed appropriate and practical at the time. How things
work out from the OASIS side isn't SC34's concern: we just accept whatever
the liaison representatives bring in.

(I think that JTC1 would be unhappy if we did OASIS business during an SC34
meeting, even if the participants in the SC34 meeting were also all OASIS
members. So we need to keep OASIS questions on another mailing list, unless
SC34 is in the process of generating a liaison to OASIS.)

Looking at it from a personal point of view:

I support the OASIS work, but I find there's a limit to what I can
contribute. But I want to be at least somewhere in the picture (after all, I
just renewed my membership this week!).


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:31 PM
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Draft agenda for Montreal meeting


Mary Nishikawa wrote:
> Hi,
> I think that we need some time to discuss our liaison work with OASIS 
> and how that work is progressing in relation to SC34WG3. There has been 
> recent talk about retiring the committees and regrouping. What does 
> everyone think?

Not sure how profitable a discussion of the liaison work with OASIS will 
be until we reach a common understanding of how the work in OASIS will 
be progressing. Not objecting to the discussion, just think it will be 
more productive with a common understanding of the future of the OASIS 

I am not sure that the organizational form of the work in OASIS is the 
cause of the lack of progress. While it seems too obvious for comment, 
it is the case that if you could get the right 8-10 people together 
(probably more like 4-6) you would have the bulk of the work that is 
going on in both ISO and OASIS. That is not in any way meant to 
denigrate the work by those individuals but simply to note that we don't 
have ownership of the topic maps paradigm by a large enough group of 

Yes, I know that people have been asked to participate but that is not a 
one shot sort of thing. If the people we asked the first time don't want 
to participate, we should ask them again. Not to mention asking other 
people as well. And keep on asking.

It is not a winning strategy for organizations (or intellectual 
movements) to simply say: "Well, they know we are here and can 
participate if they want to." Please realize that I work for an 
organization that for most of its history has approached fund raising 
with the attitude that people knew we were here and needed money so they 
should send it right on. You can imagine the success rate of that 
strategy for raising money. Fortunately, that has been changing under 
the current director and that has changed the results of fund raising, 
in a positive way.

Personally I am interested in discussing how we increase the ownership 
of the topic maps paradigm so that we have the critical mass of people 
to both generate interest in OASIS TCs as well as make substantial 
progress in them. (Note the emphasis on planning for the future and not 
chewing over the past. Despite my many delusions, I have never seriously 
thought that I could change the past.)

Does that sound like the beginnings of something we could productively 

Oh, negative on regrouping, that would just cause confusion and shuffle 
the people we already have. I think there are some short term 
deliverables that we can push out of each one that might spark some 
interest in the topic maps paradigm. Need to generate the attitude:
"Gee, I would like to do that!" about some of our deliverables.

Hope you are having a great day!


> Cheers,
> Mary
>> The revised draft agenda is therefore as follows:
>>  - Friday Aug 1
>>    - reporting on HyTM from NBs
>>    - timetable of work
>>    - input to editors of 13250-1: what should be in there
>>    - discuss RM requirements
>>  - Saturday Aug 2
>>    - discuss 13250-3 issues
>>    - discuss CXTM requirements
>>  - Sunday Aug 3
>>    - discuss TMQL requirements
>>    - discuss TMQL use cases
>>    - TMQL action items from London
>>  - Monday Aug 4
>>    - discuss TMCL requirements
>>    - discuss TMCL use cases
>>    - TMCL action items from London
>> Steve
>> -- 
>> Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
>> Chief Executive Officer, Ontopia
>> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
>> Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!

sc34wg3 mailing list