Re: Latest on TMQL?

Rani,

As objectively as I can be under the circumstances:

SC 34 has had a history of developing standards in SC 34, as opposed to 
writing standards against existing practice. Both are legitimate 
approaches but there are downsides to both.

The develop anew approach runs the danger of constant re-development 
with pressures to accept "but this works already sort of results." The 
existing practice approach means that we aren't really creating anything 
new, just memorializing current mistakes.

ISO has been criticized for being too slow for technology development. 
In response, it has tried to enforce some semblance of speed on the ISO 
and hence JTC 1 process.

Of which we have run afoul many times, particularly with TMQL. Mostly I 
think due to a lack of resources. We have not had large commercial 
vendors who could absorb the cost of sponsoring someone to work full 
time on TMQL. So, we relied on volunteers who had to support themselves 
as well as perform other duties.

For my part, I don't think allowing the project to die or simply adopt a 
now almost ten year old proposal is the appropriate solution.

Without inserting (text goes here), complete the draft as best you are 
able by the last week in June. That can be submitted to Toshiko and that 
will buy us several months while national bodies vote in what we all 
know to be an insufficient draft.

If all of us, including people who have a lot of opinions about process 
and history of topic maps, jump right in on the draft you file, I would 
like to think we can at least resolve any legitimate technical issues. 
We may still have style differences, etc., but the legitimately 
technical stuff should be resolvable.

We can hold weekly teleconferences, on the weekends, so that no one has 
to miss work in order to attend. I should have an account that allows me 
to sponsor that at no cost all the way around (including for me).

Hope you have started a great weekend!

Patrick

On 6/16/2011 3:41 AM, Rani Pinchuk wrote:
> Dear Lars,
>
> To say the truth, I am not sure any more. Some work has been done as 
> you might notice from the slides that were sent around. In the meeting 
> in Prague I had the impression that we are not far from closing all 
> the loose ends. I truly believed that we will have it done by now.
>
> However, later it turned out that we did not fully understand each 
> other, and a main disagreement was uncovered (practically, Benjamin 
> thinks that the path expression we developed should be *added* to the 
> current draft, while I believe it should *replace* the path expression 
> of the current draft).
>
> Since Benjamin is unavailable in the current months, I am not sure how 
> to proceed - an implementation of the suggested TMQL is not available 
> (although we have most of the path expression implemented in house), 
> and although the ideas are clear to me, they are not yet written in 
> the draft standard.
>
> Any suggestions, opinions are welcomed.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rani
>
> On 15-Jun-2011 18:06, Lars Heuer wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Was wondering if there was any further updates to the current TMQL
>>>> thinking/draft specification beyond what was tossed around in March.
>>
>>
>>> ... maybe we should start to implement tolog ... ;)
>>
>> Seriously: This question hangs around for almost two weeks.
>>
>> Rani/Benjamin, are you still working on TMQL or is this project dead?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Lars
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau