[tmql-wg] Proposed changes to existing requirements

Dmitry dmitryv@cogeco.ca
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:12:26 -0400

["Lars Marius Garshol"]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [tmql-wg] Proposed changes to existing requirements

> Of course, there is value to having standardized mechanisms for
> accessing TMQL processors, the question is just what to do about it.
> The way of defining TMQL that I sketched above means you can create a
> separate specification that provides both a TMQL access method and
> access methods for TMs. (Note that requirement 4:1 says a TMQL
> processor access method may be defined in a separate part later.)
> Given all of this, do people think that we should put in something
> like:
>   "TMQL may contain one part that provides mechanisms to access Topic
>   Maps (or parts thereof) from different TM repositories".
> Now that I look at that requirement I don't really like the way it's
> phrased. Maybe we should say that TMQL should provide this mechanism,
> but that it may be outside the language itself, in a separate part?
> Something like:
>   "TMQL should provide mechanisms to access Topic Maps (or parts
>   thereof) from different TM repositories. These mechanisms may be
>   part of the language itself, or specified as a separate part outside
>   the language."

I think that is more important to have a standard for creating and updating
"virtual" topic maps. From logical perspective TMQL can work with one
"virtual" map. But we need a standard to define what "virtual" TM is, what
TM update means, how we can cache topic maps, how we can "subscribe" to TM
modifications, how modifications can be propagated through TM network. (TM
fragments, TM Diff?)

Kind of "Distributed SAM".