FW: [topicmapmail] Reference to Topic Maps

[Steve Pepper]

* Murray Altheim
|
| It may be naivete, but part of the problem is that while both yours
| and Lars' points are easily understood and there's probably not even
| much disagreement regarding those points, there *is* no consensus
| within the community, nor has there been. There've been those who've
| for their own purposes even claimed authority over the ideas, the
| specifications, whatever, but I'd be hard pressed to believe anybody
| at this point as being the ultimate authority on what constitutes
| "Topic Maps" or what should be the authoritive source.

This kind of comment is not very helpful, Murray.

Perhaps you could be more a bit more explicit: "no consensus within the
community" about WHAT, exactly? And how do you define "the community".

Everyone - and I really mean *everyone* - who is actively involved in the
development of the Topic Maps standards agrees that the "ultimate authority"
and "authoritative source" of Topic Maps are the standards themselves. No
lack of consensus there.

It is also a myth that there exists any fundamental dissension among the
standards makers. There are differences of emphasis, it is true, but there
is also mutual respect and an eagerness to work together to further develop
the standard. Those whose primary focus has been the TMDM are actively
supporting and contributing to the development of the TMRM, and vice-versa.

The wounds of 2001 are long healed, but I fear you are still stuck in the
past, Murray. A lot has happened since you withdrew from the standards work,
but it all seems to have passed you by. I'm sorry about that. What can we do
to help you out of the past and into the present?

Steve