ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34N0618

ISO/IEC logo

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



P-Member APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT AS PRESENTED APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT WITH COMMENTS AS GIVEN ON THE ATTACHED DISAPPROVAL OF THE DRAFT FOR REASONS ON THE ATTACHED DISAPPROVAL (appropriate changes in the text will change vote to APPROVAL) ABSTENTION (For Reasons Below) NO RESPONSE
Canada       X    
China           X
Italy           X
Japan   X        
Korea       X    
Netherlands X          
Norway     X      
United Kingdom     X      
United States X          

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.



  1. 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:








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.




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


  1. 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.


  1. 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.


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


  1. 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."


  1. 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.


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




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

1

2

(3)

4

5

(6)

(7)

MB1

Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/
Figure/Table/Note
(e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB

Proposed change by the MB

Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted



NO

Introduction


ge

The Introduction should not use terminology that is defined in the standard itself.



NO

1


ge

The Scope section does not serve as a definition of the scope of ISO 13250-5 in that it does not summarize and categorize what 13250-5 does and does not do. The content in this section should be comprehensible to someone who does not yet understand the rest of the document and it should include mention of the mathematical model.



NO

2

Property”

te

The definition of "property" does not make it clear whether properties are named values or just values. The second paragraph of NOTE 1 appears to be self-contradictory.



NO

2

Subject”

ge

The term “subject” is already defined in 13250-2 and should not be redefined here.



NO

2

Note 2

ge

The TMDM is in fact disclosed as a "TMA" in Annex A 13250-2.



NO

2

Topic Map”

ge

The definition of "Topic Map" is in conflict with that in TMDM and this is unacceptable. ISO 13250 needs to have only one definition of such a core concept. A new term should be used to describe the set of subject-centric assertion models addressed by the TMRM that encompasses but is not restricted to Topic Maps.



NO

2

Topic Map Application (TMA)”

ge

The term "Topic Map Application (TMA)" should be replaced by a new term that cannot be confused with the notion of an application that is based on the TMDM.



NO

5


ge

Without a mathematical model the TMRM is not sufficiently complete to be approved as a CD.



NO

Annex A


ge

Annex A is inappropriate for an ISO standard as it is likely to become very quickly outdated.



United Kingdom

1

2

(3)

4

5

(6)

(7)

MB1

Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/
Figure/Table/Note
(e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB

Proposed change by the MB

Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted



GB



Ge

The UK does not approve the current draft. The reference model needs a mathematical model in addition to the current text as the mathematical model is needed to support TMQL and TMCL. The Topic Map view terminology as agreed in Washington needs to be used throughout. The UK needs to see both parts together before it can approve the draft as it is vital that the two parts form a coherent whole.




GB

Clause 2


Ed

Definition of Topic Map clashes with definition in part 2.

In general the use of the term "Topic Map" and "Topic" within this part is confusing. Should be replaced with terms that are not already in use in ISO 13250



GB

Clause 3

Item 5

Ed

Clarify whether all implicit properties required to be made explicit? The definition of property does not distinguish between implicit and explicit properties. What is the definition of an implicit property?



GB

Clause 3

Item 6

Ed

"Rules for identification of a subject proxy with its governing TMA" - not sure of the meaning of this. Does it mean that from a subject proxy users can tell which TMA governs it? Or does it mean that a TMA discloses identification rules for subject proxies?



GB

Clause 5


Ed

Is there such a formal model now?