[sc34wg3] New XTM draft

Steve Pepper pepper at ontopia.net
Tue May 2 07:02:17 EDT 2006

NB Document for NB review!

* Lars Marius Garshol
| For the record: a new draft (dated 2006-05-02) where <topicName> has  
| been changed to <name> has now been uploaded to isotopicmaps.org.

This will be published as an SC34 document shortly. Please regard
it as an official document to be reviewed by National Bodies
before the Seoul meeting.

| The reason is that Steve Pepper insisted that we make the change,
| and in the interests of peace and quiet the editors made the change.

For the record, here is the private email discussion that Lars Marius
is referring to:


* Lars Marius Garshol
| * Steve Pepper
| >
| > This draft still uses <topicName> instead of <name>, despite
| > your note on March 21st. I assume this is an oversight. Please
| > can you fix it before the document goes to ISO.
| Just in case you think this is a personal thing, I went into the  
| meeting with Graham on Monday thinking we were going to use <name>. I  
| personally didn't really care, but Graham really wanted <topicName>.  
| Anyway, this isn't the last chance; we can discuss this in Seoul.

* Steve Pepper
| The plan for XTM was to discuss changes on the mailing list.
| I raised the issue; no-one objected; you stated clearly that
| unless objections were raised the change would go into the
| next draft. I assumed, as I think was only reasonable, that
| such "objections" would have to have been raised in public,
| on the mailing list, such that they could be responded to.
| They were not.
| Graham had every opportunity to raise his objection on the
| list and have it debated, but he did not. Therefore, from
| both a procedural and a "moral" standpoint, the change should
| be made now and the onus should be on Graham to argue in
| Seoul to have it reversed. The onus should *not* be on me
| to have to restate the case.
| I hope you both agree that this is the only reasonable way
| to proceed.


Of course, editors must have some freedom, but WG3 must also be
able to require that editors take discussions on the mailing list
seriously and that they stand by the assurances they give on that

If it is raised, the issue of whether XTM 2.0 should change from
<name> to <topicName> will be discussed in Seoul.

For those that want to take a position, I refer to my original
proposal [1], where the key arguments for <name> are (1) avoiding
unnecessary verbosity, and (2) consistency with the naming of the
<role> element type.

I suggest that any changes to the XTM 2.0 DTD as specified in [2]
be kept to an absolute minimum from here on, and that proposals
for changes be announced on this list at least two weeks before
the Seoul meeting, in order that they can be carefully considered.
I don't want yet another 6 month delay for 13250-3 just because
new proposals have turned up during the meeting.


[1] http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2006-January/003056.html
[2] http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/

Steve Pepper <pepper at ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Coordinator, W3C RDF/TM Task Force
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list