[tmql-wg] subjectIndicatorRef and resourceRef in TMQL
Lars Marius Garshol
Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:44:20 +0100
* Rani Pinchuk
| I have read the TMDM before. But that document was quite tough for
| me :-)
It can be, if you come directly from XTM. That's why I recommended XTM
1.1, which explains how XTM maps to TMDM.
| I looked at it again now, and realized that role, type and scope are
| always given as topic items. Till now I assumed (wrongly) that XTM
| 1.0 follows the TMDM.
It's the other way around, really. TMDM follows XTM, but not slavishly.
| Can I assume that XTM 1.1 follows the TMDM?
Nope. It's near-identical to XTM 1.0.
| In that context (of XTM 1.1), I would like to ask if there is a
| mistake in the DTD of it (Appendix B) when defining the
| subjectIdentity. That definition looks like it contradict the
| definition in section 4.5.
Yeah, they're out of sync. Good catch! (I'll fix that.)
| I have several questions about TMDM and XTM 1.1. I am not sure which
| mailing list is the correct one for those questions.
The sc34wg3 list (same server) is really the right one for TMDM/XTM
questions, or TOPICMAPMAIL.
| So I am sorry if it is a bit off-topic.
We can live with that. :)
| 1. Why in XTM 1.1 the variants can be still placed one inside the
| other, while in the TMDM they are flattened? Is this a backward
| compatibility issue?
(Though there's not much reason to flatten them in the DTD,
really. The recursion is there as a convenience so that you can
inherit scope from your parent variant. Of course, it's a convenience
that nobody ever uses (we now know), so it just adds needless
implementation complexity, but taking it out of XTM 1.1 doesn't help,
since you have to support XTM 1.0 anyway, and thus we're effectively
stuck with this.)
| 2. I saw that there is in TMDM type for each base names but not for
| the topic. However, in the XTM 1.1 there is instaceOf for both the
| topic and the baseName. Is that a backward compatibility issue?
Not really. XTM has <instanceOf> for topics because having to write
that out as full associations is very verbose, and since nearly all
topics have a topic type a shorthand is useful. It's just a shorthand,
but a useful one.
| 3. Should we understand the type(s) of a topic as the type(s) of its
| base name(s)?
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
| If not how should we treat for example 18.104.22.168 in the use cases
I think you have to explain the above before I can answer that.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >