[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes

[Kal Ahmed]

> >Smart thinking. (It could become a selling point for TM vendors who ha=
ve
> > the preprocessor built into their engine :-))
>
> Alternatively, SAM could specify the rules for one form of name-based
> merging, i.e. the TNC - which is left up to the application - and there
> could be a conformance clause stating that conforming applications have
> to support it. That would solve the backwards compatibility issue.
>

XML Schema defines the concepts of minimally-conforming processor; a=20
fully-conforming processor; and a processor "in conformance to the XML=20
Representation of Schemas".

 Perhaps something similar could apply here. It is also interesting to no=
te=20
that in XML Schema, the essential difference between being "in conformanc=
e to=20
the XML Representation of Schemas" and being "fully conforming" is=20
"network-awareness" (in this case being capable of retrieving schemas for=
=20
validation purposes), which raises the issue of processing of external=20
topicRefs - perhaps a minimally-conforming processor could also be exempt=
=20
from chasing down those references ?

Minimally conforming processor: Implements the SAM w/o TNC and does not=20
retrieve an entire external topic map resource when encountering a refere=
nce=20
to a topic in another topic map.

In conformance to the TNC: Minimally-conforming + TNC

Fully-conforming: In conformance to the TNC + retrieves external topic ma=
p=20
resources when encountering a reference to a topic in that external resou=
rce.

If nothing else, it adds another level of differentiation for the vendors=
! ;-)

Just a thought...

Kal

--=20
Kal Ahmed, techquila.com
XML and Topic Map Consultancy

e: kal@techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531
w: www.techquila.com