FW: NIST's position and Funchal

[Daniel Rivers-Moore]

FYI - this thread on the Part 28 Mailing list (xmlsc4 at nist.gov) is directly
relevant to the thread "Technologies 2001" on this list.

Best regards

Daniel


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Rivers-Moore [mailto:daniel.rivers-moore at rivcom.com]
Sent: 10 February 2001 14:16
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: NIST's position and Funchal

This discussion and the one arising from the Knowledge Technologies 2001
Conference announcement are, it seems to me, related inextricably.

People are asking "Why is SC4 not present at the Knowledge Technolgies 2001
Conference, while Topic Maps is?". I believe the answer is very simple:
"Because of the existence of XTM (XML Topic Maps)".

Like STEP, PLIB, and the other SC4 specificatsions, Topic Maps exists as an
ISO Standard (ISO 13250: January 2000, Topic Navigation Maps). Less than a
year later, in December 2000, an XML Topic Maps DTD was released by an
ad-hoc group created for the purpose (TopicMaps.org), which brings the great
work done under ISO into the XML arena and gives it visibility in the
XML/W3C community. Less than 3 months after that (February 2001), we have a
complete XTM specification, version 1.0, which relates the DTD to a
Conceptual Model, written in UML, derived from the ISO specification and
consistent with the XTM DTD. This fast-track from ISO conceptual and
modelling work, to XML expression and representation, is what has made such
a stir around Topic Maps, IMHO.

If you want SC4 standards to make a stir and be visible to a broader
community, and to get space at conferences like KT2001, you NEED an XML
representation of them.

With Part 28 Late Binding, and ANY EARLY BINDING OF YOUR CHOICE, you are in
a position to do just that. You can publish any and all the STEP models,
PLIB, and the rest of the SC4 models, in any of the Part 28 bindings, give
them names like XPLIB, PDREX (Product Data Representation and Exchange in
XML), get them published on the XML.org Repository, get OASIS to endorse
them as OASIS specifications, get SC4 to issue them as ISO TRs, and the
world will start to notice.

A year later, issue the XML Schema compliant version, and the world will
notice even more (unless XML Schema has gone the way of RDF), or issue a
Topic Maps view, or whatever.

BUT DON'T TURN YOUR BACK ON THE ONE OR TWO XML REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE NOW
READY FOR PRIME-TIME.

Please, please, use this fantastic marketing opportunity.

A plea from your one-time Joint Project Leader, and all-time friend.

Daniel Rivers-Moore


-----Original Message-----
From: David Price [mailto:dmprice at us.ibm.com]
Sent: 08 February 2001 17:31
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: NIST's position and Funchal



Ed and other NIST'ers,

Personally, not any IBM position, I find the NIST position a bit odd (but
have no objection to it being expressed here).  While it may be true that
NIST does not want to pursue a DTD-based, perhaps less-than-perfect
solution, it is clearly not true that "it is unlikely that Part 28 v1 will
be of any value to U.S. industry".  As Ed himself has stated, at some level
ANY binding that gets standardized provides value. It gives US industry a
STEP/XML capability from which to work that they may love or hate. If they
hate it, then based on feedback from real-world usage, not academic issues,
we can fix whatever the real problems happen to be. One can hope that an
ISO TS works like the W3C CR idea and people try things out.

Also, I've heard many ideas about limiting the EXPRESS that SC4 can use,
configuring XML Schemas on a schema-specific basis and making things easy
for "enterprise programmers".  However, in my view it's a long, long time
before SC4 will standardize any of those ideas so I believe a Part 28
Edition 1 sooner rather than later is a good thing. That, by the way, is
why IBM voted Yes on Part 28 Edition 1 and I volunteered to edit the stupid
thing last summer. In the end, get it out and let the market tell us what
do to seems the best approach.

Cheers,
David

IBM Corporation
5300 International Blvd.
N. Charleston, SC 29418, USA
dmprice at us.ibm.com
Phone : +1 (843) 760-4341   Fax : +1 (843) 760-3349
Oooo.
(UNC)
 ) /
(*/


Ed Barkmeyer <edbark at nist.gov>@nist.gov on 02/07/2001 01:21:14 PM

Please respond to xmlsc4 at nist.gov

Sent by:  xmlsc4 at nist.gov


To:   Multiple recipients of list <xmlsc4 at nist.gov>
cc:
Subject:  NIST's position and Funchal




All,

Contrary to previous plans, neither Josh nor I will be in Funchal.

It is the position of NIST that we cannot make further contributions to
Part 28 v1 that will be of benefit to U.S. industry, and
that it is unlikely that Part 28 v1 will be of any value to U.S. industry.
We are at this point hoping that some benefit can be
gained by work on an XML schema version and by work on the CEB protocols,
and our further efforts will be directed to those.

-Ed

--
Edward J. Barkmeyer                           Email: edbark at nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260              Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260                   FAX: +1 301-975-4482