[topicmapmail] Announcement of XML Schema for ISO 13250 Topic Maps

[Murray Altheim]

Martin Bryan wrote:
> 
> Bernard
> 
> > Some features of ISO 13250 have been *deliberately * let down by XTM 1.0
> > for clarity and simplification's sake, through collective reflexion of the
> > AG, like facets for instance. (I consider it a good thing, for I really
> > never understood what the hell facets represented and what they could be
> > used to).
> 
> That's because you never saw a requirement for them. Those of us who have
> identified the requirement consider them essential.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there was no way to express facets
in XTM syntax. The XTM 1.0 syntax does not have explicit facet syntax, but
this doesn't stop anyone from expressing facet relationships. We added 
baseName back into occurrence for this reason, at Steve Pepper's request,
if I remember correctly. And it's important to note that XTM isn't meant to 
suit absolutely everyone's needs. Every spec has an 80/20 point. Simplicity 
was judged a very important goal for XTM. We also didn't want people 
implementing RDF using facet syntax alone - a danger that would have created 
a second-order, alternative syntax for associations within XTM that might
damage both understanding and the acceptance of topic maps themselves.
 
[...]
> > But OTOH, is XTM 1.0 completely conformant to
> > ISO 13250, since it let down those features ?
> 
> Most decidedly not - this is the reason for my rejection of it. (Note my
> choice of verb - its very deliberate.)

Martin, your message is either deliberately or unintentionally belligerent,
and I don't see to what end. If you reject the work that has been done (as 
indicated here and by your storming out of the meeting in Swindon), do you 
want your name removed from the 1.0 Acknowledgements? If you don't want to 
be seen as endorsing the XTM specification, then I'm guessing you don't want
your name on it.
 
[...]
> Re:Could you be more explicit on what you mean by  the following ?
> 
> "The insane decision to use a fixed tag set made the use of XTM an
> impossibility in my environment. I need to be able to use explicit tag
> names".
> 
> I have to train non-technical people working with general-purpose tools that
> have not been specifically designed to create topic maps to generate the
> relevant data during the last few days of a frantic monthly update cycle.
> The topic maps need to be updated in the last hour or so of this process.
> They are the most time critical part of the process as they are the last
> thing that can be updated. By selecting simple to understand element names I
> can manage this process effecitively. By forcing them to enter type
> information as attributes I cannot hope to have them correctly create
> XML-based Topic Maps. Converting my Topic Maps to XTM is relatively easy if
> I need to communicate with others, but no way do I intend to author in that
> format when I can define a schema that lets me use my existing application
> in a conformant manner and still take advantage of XLink.

I won't repeat what has already been said about teaching angle bracket syntax.

As Nikita has demonstrably shown in his release of various XSLT stylesheets
that transform from the various ISO 13250-based DTDs into XTM syntax, the
specific syntax used is somewhat irrelevant. Given your background, I can
only guess that you're ignoring this in order to make some point. Calling
the work on XTM 'insane' insults the efforts of all of us who have put an
enormous amount of energy into its development, and gives little credit
or acknowledgement of the work and the specific requirements we operated
under. XTM 1.0 syntax is distinctly and explicitly an *interchange* syntax.
As such, it uses a fixed tag set. To do otherwise would be 'insane' from
an interoperability standpoint, requiring everyone to first convert to
another interchange syntax (using something akin to an AF processor) in
order to merge, exchange, edit, or otherwise process XTM topic maps. 

It would seem a *bit* strange to require everyone in the Web world to begin
using an AF processor when an interchange syntax suits just fine for most
applications. Perhaps not yours. But deriding the work of others doesn't
gain you any friends. 

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu