[sc34wg3] What now, WG3? (was: Montreal meeting recommendations)

[Martin Bryan]

Re

> | Now the first question: I believe that the XTM 1.0 syntax and the
> | existing "HyTime-based" syntax are really just two distinct syntaxes
> | for one and the same set of assertion types, which I've been
> | collectively calling "The Standard Application of Topic Maps."
>
> I agree, except that I've been calling that very same thing "topic
> maps".

Have we unwittingly stumbled on the name for the core functionality in the
above? Doesn't "assertion types" make more sense for what is described
there? Don't we have Standard Applications of Assertion Types that form
syntax dependent topic maps?

Martin Bryan