[sc34wg3] How Two Syntaxes Can Make One Standard

[Michel Biezunski]

[Martin Bryan:]
> I have one other request to make to those working on this effort, which is
> highlighted by the following paragraph:
>
> > Four rules must be applied by all topic map parsers:
> >
> > -- the subject-based merging rule
> > -- the name-based merging rule
> > -- the node-demander rule
> > -- the no-redundancy rule
>
> Please so not introduce terminology into the model which is not
> supported by
> definitions in 13250 without a formal definition of the meaning
> of the term.
> For example, there is no concept of node-demander or redundancy in 13250.
> There is a concept of merging, but this is clearly identified as being
> "scope-dependent" which the above names do not make clear. Any
> "rules" must
> be clearly related to the clause in 13250 which states them. If
> there is no
> such clause than a clear case for the "rule" must be agreed by all members
> of the user community, and not just by those involved in the discussions
> relation to one of the proposed syntaxes.

OK. Fair enough. But we can also use this as an opportunity to introduce
these
terms as part as the work we are proposing to start.

Michel
==========================================
Michel Biezunski, InfoLoom
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Email: mb@infoloom.com  Web: www.infoloom.com
==========================================