[sc34wg3] Analysis of TMRM Use Cases

[Jan Algermissen]

Kal Ahmed wrote:

> Your entire explanation presupposes that Topic Maps == RM. I don't buy
> that - I never, even with a close reading of  ISO 13250 or XTM 1.0 saw
> *anything* remotely like the RM in it. So as far as I am concerned RM !=
> Topic Maps.

Kal,

I must admit that I am not very familar with the rules within ISO, so the
following might well be irrelevant, but...

Personally, I really prefer to contribute to making Topic Maps as good and
powerful as I am convinced they can be than limiting my thinking to a set
of existing documents. Especially since these documents leave an immense room
for interpretation of details anyway.

I also personally don't understand the need to nail down Topic Maps as fast
as possible since usually successful technologies exist (and create revenue)
long before a standard finally ties diverse implementations together (consider
SQL and C as prominent examples). Actually, I think that the knowledge for
creating good standards is missing before diverse people/groups have 
practically extensively explored the technology to be standardised. 

Consider a software architecture department having just signed the final
requirements for an implementation when suddenly a developer rushes into 
the room: "Guys, I found that we can make the whole thing much, much better
if we consider this and that...". Says the lead architect: "Sorry man, we've
just signed the requirements, no way to listen to you."

Maybe that's overexagerating a bit, but that's the impression and fear I have.


Jan



-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org