Avoiding mistakes: was Re: [sc34wg3] DM conformance

Patrick Durusau sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:06:37 -0500


Quoting from your post below:

 > I'm having huge difficulties working out what the hell it is you are
 > trying to say here...

As am I with your posts. Don't want to drop the thread but I want to 
take a day or so to consider how I may (emphasis on may) make my 
position more clear (or perhaps discover we are actually in agreement, 
that has happended before at topic map meetings, despite vehement 
"apparent" disagreement).

Apologies to the group is my quick replies, necessitated by the press of 
the SBL meeting duties, has generated more heat than light on this topic.

Hope everyone is having a great day!


Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Patrick Durusau
> | 
> | If the DM is not going to claim any conformance, then why the loose
> | language on interpretation? 
> Which lose language? And what is the connection?
> | Simply having the various other specifications say they are
> | following the data model answers my concerns.  I don't think they
> | would falsely claim conformance to the DM and that settles the
> | question of conformance, without having the DM make noise about
> | conformance that it has no intention of claiming.
> Exactly. Except that the first sentence quoted above ("Simply
> having...") seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph.
> I'm having huge difficulties working out what the hell it is you are
> trying to say here...
> | Why burden the DM with interpretation or conformance questions at
> | all?
> You're asking me! I don't want that, but you seem to. If you are happy
> to leave the whole mess out then we agree and can move on.
> | Doesn't having the other specs say they are following the DM get you
> | all that one could reasonably expect?
> No. I don't think that gets us anything except verbiage that achieves
> nothing. It's not asserting conformance that is useful, but actual
> conformance, and I don't think the notion of conformance of
> specifications to one another within a related family makes any sense.
> Consistency I think is the word we are looking for here, not
> conformance.  We want to have DM, XTM, CXTM, TMQL, and TMCL be
> consistent, but the only way we can achieve that is by trying our
> best. Adding a statement to the effect that we succeeded will not make
> us succeed.
> Like you I believe we *will* succeed, but why bother saying so?
> | What more do you want the DM to stand for other than being something
> | other specs claim to follow?
> Formally, I want to be an editorial device used by other
> specifications to make it explicit what they mean, and only that. I
> don't really see what other role it can play.
> In practice I'd like it to be the definition of what topic maps are,
> but we can't achieve that with the specifications themselves, really,
> that's more of a political/mindshare issue.

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!