[sc34wg3] Review of N0393

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Patrick Durusau
>|
>| Are you using "interoperability" in the sense of your prior post
>| (http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001460.html)?
>
>Yes, though that posting contains very little information on what I
>think "interoperability" means. This thread is a much better place to
>look for information:
><URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001615.html >
> 
>
I will re-read as a post on "interoperability." I read it initially as 
treatment of the conformance issue but the two are linked as you point out.

>* Lars Marius Garshol
>|
>| I think for a conceptual model that would make sense, but the SAM is
>| a data model designed to support interoperability (XTM/HyTM/CXTM)
>| and the definition of query and constraint languages.
> 
>* Patrick Durusau
>|
>| In the same sense that XSLT is "interoperable" with XML? Except that
>| XML does not have a "data model," well, according to some people and
>| I don't want to start that debate here, and so to be interoperable,
>| one simply follows the syntax. So "interoperability" here means a
>| congruence of syntax?
>
>It's more complicated than that. Obviously, if you don't conform to
>the syntax specification when interchanging your topic map you won't
>get interoperability, but interoperability is also about having the
>software that reads the syntax act the same way.
>
>To me, interoperability means to be able to process the same topic map
>document (and possibly schema/query) with the same topic map
>implementation and get the same results.
>  
>
???

Quite puzzled by your explanation of interoperability. Not sure how you 
would ever get from the "same topic map document (and possibly 
schema/query) with the same topic map implementation" to an inconsistent 
result? Not trying to be difficult but if you did, wouldn't that be a 
programming error in the application? Assuming identical starting 
conditions I really don't see how you would get different results. A 
parser that starts with identical starting conditions and rules, 
assuming there is not some random function in the code, should produce 
the same result, shouldn't it?

A less technical question would be is that same result 
"interoperability?" Sounds more like consistency (conformance?) or some 
similar term.

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps