[sc34wg3] Aug 3 meeting: Issue (term-tm-processor), Issue (xtm-implicit-constraints):

[Robert Barta]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:58:49PM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> This decision means that the SAM model will not attempt to retain all
> of these implicit constraints, which basically means that we as a
> community disagree with what we did in XTM 1.0. There are no backwards
> compatibility issues here, so we are free to do that.
> 
> | This will be taken care of by TMCL later on?
> 
> Not really. TMCL is about specifying application-specific constraints,
> whereas the SAM constraints are constraints that must apply to all
> topic maps because of how topic maps work.

.....whereby this boundary might be somewhat artifical, while useful. A
halfway decent TMCL will have to impose structural constraints as well.
Better to have it in SAM, though.

\rho