ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34N0618

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34

Information Technology --
Document Description and Processing Languages

TITLE:	Summary of Voting on JTC 1/SC 34 N 594 - Information Technology - Topic Maps - Reference Model
SOURCE:	SC34 Secretariat
PROJECT:	CD 13250-5: Information Technology - Topic Maps - Reference Model
PROJECT EDITOR:	Mr. Patrick Durusau; Dr. Steven R. Newcomb
STATUS:	Summary of voting
ACTION:	Based on the ballot responses, this CD is NOT APPROVED and the project status changes to 30.60. Project Editors are requested to review comments and strongly consider disapproved votes. Please advise the Secretariat regarding (1) the change to status 30.92 or 30.98, and (2) the next project status and anticipated date that project status will change.
DATE:	2005-05-20
DISTRIBUTION:	SC34 and Liaisons
REFER TO:	N0594b - 2005-02-18 - Ballot due 2005-05-18 CD 13250-5 Information Technology - Topic Maps - Reference Model N0594 - 2005-02-18 - Information Technology - Topic Maps - Reference Model
REPLY TO:	Dr. James David Mason (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Chairman) Y-12 National Security Complex Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A. Telephone: +1 865 574-6973 Facsimile: +1 865 574-1896 Network: masonjd@y12.doe.gov http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/ ftp://ftp.y12.doe.gov/pub/sgml/sc34/ Mr. G. Ken Holman (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat - Standards Council of Canada) Crane Softwrights Ltd. Box 266, Kars, ON K0A-2E0 CANADA Telephone: +1 613 489-0999 Facsimile: +1 613 489-0995 Network: jtc1sc34@scc.ca http://www.jtc1sc34.org

Canada

Summary

Canada's position is Disapproval with reasons provided below. Acceptance of the reasons and appropriate changes will change our vote to Approval.

Comments

1. The current draft of TMRM continues to use the term “Topic Maps” in a sense that contradicts the rest of the standard. This issue was discussed multiple times in multiple places (including TMRM workshop in Montreal, Aug 2004, and in Washington DC, Nov 2004). One of the proposed solutions was to introduce new term in the text of TMRM. Canada supports this solution and would like to see a new term introduced in the TMRM. This term should define a generalized formal model that should cover Topic Maps (as defined in other parts of the standard) and other models that can be viewed as Topic Maps.

2. The term “Topic Map Application (TMA)” has been a source of confusion and discussion in multiple working group meetings. This term should be reviewed or renamed to eliminate confusion and misunderstanding.

The following proposals, related to points 1 and 2 above, are provided for further discussion:

• Possible terms for the generalized formal “assertion model": “Subject-centric Knowledge Model”, “Subject-centric Information Model”.

• Possible terms for describing generalized version of a specific topic map: “Subject-centric Knowledge Map”, “Subject-centric Information Map”.

• Possible definition of “Subject-centric Knowledge Model” (“SCKM”): "A SCKM is a formal model that represents information by identifying subjects and making assertions about them. The formal model is expressed through a mathematical formalism (Tau) and includes a set of statements (the six "disclosures") that define and constrain key operations provided by the formalism.” An information model that can be disclosed according to the requirements of the Reference Model is called a “Subject-centric Knowledge Model”.

• Description of the relationship between Topic Maps and the more abstract SCKM: A “Subject-centric knowledge model (SCKM) is Topic Maps iff any knowledge map which conforms to this SCKM can be transformed to and from some knowledge map which conforms to TMDM without loss of information. This transformation should be defined by general rules applicable to any knowledge map from this SCKM and TMDM.

• A “Subject-centric knowledge model is Topic Maps compatible iff any knowledge map which conforms to this SCKM can be transformed to some TMDM instance without loss of information. This transformation should be defined by general rules applicable to any knowledge map that conforms to this SCKM.

• A class of knowledge maps that conform to a specific SCKM is viewable as Topic Maps iff it is possible to define a transformation which maps any knowledge map from this class to some TMDM-based knowledge map. This transformation can include reference to some elements general for the SCKM class. This transformation is called a Topic Maps View.

Note: In the above statements, a SCKM does not need to be compatible with Topic Maps to have the ability (for some knowledge maps which conform to this SCKM) to be viewed as Topic Maps.

3. The Introduction should describe the problem of subject identity in a form that is more oriented towards and relevant to the IT industry.

4. The Introduction must avoid active use of terms that are defined later in glossary (refer to paragraph 7 in the Introduction). The terms could be introduced here, with reference to the glossary.

5. The Scope should include reference to a formal model that helps to understand connection of Topic Maps with other related formalisms such as RDF, relational databases etc.

6. The Scope should also include, or at least reference, the TMRM Use Cases and Requirements discussed in the Montreal TMRM workshop (Aug 2004).

7. In the Glossary, the definition for “Subject Proxy”: suggest the following re-wording: "A set of one or more properties which is governed by a TMA and in light of its governing TMA, indicates a single subject."

8. The Formal Model (section 5) must be a part of this document and be consistent with the content in sections 1-4. Further, the six “disclosure” statements must be represented in the Formal Model as operations, functions or properties requiring specification or constraint.

9. The following editorial changes should be made on revising the TMRM:

• In first paragraph of the introduction, last sentence "becomes the" occurs twice - delete one occurrence.

• In the Glossary, under "Property", in the Note, first paragraph, the term "auto-generation" - suggest just "generation" is sufficient here.

• In the Glossary, under "Subject Proxy", in the Note, last sentence "...an abstraction used herein to describe specifiy the disclosures...". This sentence does not make sense grammatically - suggest removing one of "describe" or "specify".

Japan

0. General

(0.1) The term "Topic Map View" should be used instead of "Topic Map application".

(0.2) The format should be complied with ISO standard format.

1. Technical

(1.1) All part of the specification:

"URI" should be changed to "IRI", because an IRI is a sequence of characters from the Universal Character Set (Unicode/ISO 10646) and allows to use non-Latin scripts in it.

(1.2) Term "Topic Map Application Disclosure" should be added in Terms and definitions.

(1.3) Clause 2 Glossary

The definition of "Topic Map" should consist with the definition in the TMDM.

(1.4) Clause 5 Formal Model

Formal model should be added.

2. Editorial

(2.1) Introduction, 1st paragraph:

" ..., the insightful player becomes the becomes the next person ... "
should be
" ..., the insightful player becomes the next person ... ".

(2.2) Clause 2 Glossary:

"Glossary" should be "Terms and definitions".

Korea

We, the Korean national body, recognize the importance of TM reference model and strongly support and encourage the efforts made by the TMRM editors. However, the current document submitted for ballot is too insubstantial to merit a CD status and it also did not follow the WG3 resolution made at the last Washington meeting regarding TMRM, which specified the need for including a mathematical model in drafting TM refernece model. We strongly encourage that editors may submit a new draft that contains a mathemtical model.

Norway

United Kingdom