---

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.

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

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?