ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34 N0278
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34
Information Technology
Document Description and Processing Languages
Title: |
Topic maps, roadmap for further work |
Source: |
Lars Marius Garshol, JTC1/SC34 |
Project: |
ISO 13250 |
Project editor: |
Steven R. Newcomb, Michel Biezunski, Martin Bryan |
Status: |
Editor's draft |
Action: |
For information |
Date: |
17 December 2001 |
Summary: |
Roadmap of the further work on topic maps |
Distribution: |
SC34 and Liaisons |
Refer to: |
|
Supercedes: |
|
Reply to: |
Dr. James David Mason (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 Chairman) Y-12
National Security Complex Information Technology Services Bldg. 9113
M.S. 8208 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A. Telephone: +1 865
574-6973 Facsimile: +1 865 574-1896 E-mailk:
mailto:mxm@y12.doe.gov http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/sc34oldhome.htm
Ms. Sara Hafele, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat American National
Standards Institute 25 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 Tel: +1
212 642-4937 Fax: +1 212 840-2298 E-mail:
shafele@ansi.org |
Topic maps, roadmap for further work
The SC34 WG3 meeting in Orlando drew up a roadmap for their further
work, which is documented here.
One major decision that was taken was to turn ISO 13250 into a
multi-part standard. This document defines the current understanding of the
various parts.
1. Definition of new terms
A number of new terms were agreed on at the meeting. These are:
- HyTM syntax
- The HyTime-based SGML architecture for topic maps defined in the
original ISO 13250 standard.
- Serialization
- The process of outputting an instance of a topic map model into some
formal syntax expressed as a sequence of bytes.
- Deserialization
- The process of reading an instance of some topic map syntax and
building an instance of some topic map model.
- Reference model
- The new name for the level 0 model (PMTM4), which emphasizes that it
is intended to be used as a reference point for knowledge representations
rather than as an implementation guide.
- Standard Application Model
- The new name for the level 1 model (infoset), which emphasizes that
this is the topic map model, and that it is defined in terms of the
reference model.
2. Overview of work
Individual tasks to be completed:
- 1. Reference model
- A document based on PMTM4, which will define a reference model for
topic maps, which can be used to define the relationships to other knowledge
representations.
- 2. SAM defined in terms of the RM
- Definition of the Standard Application Model of topic maps (3.) as an
application of the reference model. (We need a better name.)
- 3. The Standard Application Model of topic maps
- A model for topic maps using the infoset formalism (with informative
UML diagrams) representing base names, occurrences, and variant names as
separate constructs, based on the existing infoset proposal.
- 4. XTM Deserialization Specification
- A detailed and formal specification of how to build instances of the
SAM (3.) from XTM 1.0 documents.
- 5. XTM Serialization Recommendation (informative)
-
- A formal description of how to serialize instances of the SAM into
XTM 1.0 syntax. It is currently thought that the necessary formality for
conformance testing can be achieved without this document, but that it will be
useful as an informative document. Its status is therefore expected to be
informative rather than normative.
- 6. HyTM Serialization Recommendation (informative)
- A formal description of how to serialize instances of the SAM into
HyTM syntax. It is currently thought that the necessary formality for
conformance testing can be achieved without this document, but that it will be
useful as an informative document. Its status is therefore expected to be
informative rather than normative.
- 7. HyTM Deserialization Specification
- A detailed and formal specification of how to build instances of the
SAM (3.) from HyTM documents.
- 8. Canonicalization specification
- A detailed and formal specification how to serialize instances of the
SAM (3.) into canonical topic map documents. These documents will have the
property that if produced from semantically equivalent SAM instances they will
be byte-by-byte identical. This allows us to do automatic conformance testing.
- 9. HyTM Syntax Specification
- A reformulation of the existing HyTM syntax in wording suitable to
the new standard framework. (See open isues.)
- 10. XTM 1.0 Syntax Specification
- A reformulation of the existing XTM syntax in wording suitable to the
new standard framework. (See open isues.)
- 11. Canonical Syntax Specification
- A specification of the syntax of canonical SAM instances. The process
described in 8. produces instances of this syntax from instances of the
SAM.
The TMQL and TMCL nodes are present in the diagram to indicate that
they are tasks in need of completion, and what their relationships to the above
tasks are. As they depend on the SAM further work on them is suspended until
the SAM is stable.
2.1 Working documents
Below is a table of the documents WG3 will produce immediately. Note
that these documents do not map directly to the parts of the final standard.
Provisional title |
Contents |
Editors |
The Reference Model for Topic Maps |
1. 2. |
Steven R. Newcomb, Michel Biezunski |
The Standard Application Model of Topic Maps |
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. |
Graham D. Moore, Lars Marius Garshol |
It is expected that substantial drafts of these documents will be
available for the Barcelona meeting of SC34 in May 2002.
8., 9., 10., and 11. will eventually have to be written as well, but at
the moment no editors have been assigned to these documents. Unless any
volunteers step forward these tasks must wait until the first two documents
have been completed.
2.2. Parts of the final standard
Below follows the list of parts of the final standard as currently
perceived.
Number |
Title |
Contents |
??? |
??? |
1. |
??? |
??? |
2. 3. |
??? |
??? |
4. 5. 9. |
??? |
??? |
6. 7. 10. |
??? |
??? |
8. 11. |
3. Open issues
A number of issues were raised at the meeting, but not resolved. These
were:
- Should we update the HyTM syntax to provide it with all the
capabilities missing from it that XTM 1.0 has?
- Actual definition of test suites and conformance testing procedures,
is that to be left for OASIS, or does ISO want to do it?