[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| That's fair enough, but if two topic name nodes have different
| assertions connecting them to the identical string it need not follow
| that their respective topics must be merged.

* Jan Algermissen
| 
| Agreed, it is a processing model question. But it makes sense to me,
| why would you NOT merge them ? (this means: why would you want to
| have two sidtinct subjects for them ?)

I can't really picture the graph you are talking about here. Could you
make an ASCII drawing or something? I fear we will just talk past one
another if you don't.
 
| Again, to be clear and to prevent this discussion harming the RM,
| this is a question of what semantics the SAM provides and of the
| processing model on how to turn XTM markup into a topic map graph
| using these semantics.
| 
| Ok ?

What do you mean "harming the RM"? The rest of that I replied to in my
previous email a couple of minutes ago.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >