[sc34wg3] A new idea for the Topic Maps standard

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

<snip>

>| Alternatively people can implement their own RM compatible
>| processing models and process Topic Maps the way they want.
>| But why? - given a set of SAM enabled open source and commercial tools.
>| Besides if they do some proprietary staff they will have a hard time
>| interchanging with the rest of the world.
>
>Agreed. I think we should be careful not to encourage people to take
>this route. As Patrick says there may be special cases where people
>want to do it, for example because they don't want to use Unicode, but
>we shouldn't encourage them to do so, precisely for the reasons you
>mention. 
>
>  
>
Not sure what Nikita mean or you agree to about "a hard time 
interchanging with the rest of the world."

We have two interchange syntaxes so no matter what processing model I 
use, so long as it complies with the requirements of the RM and I export 
to an interchange syntax, how am I failing on the interchange part?

About to go offline, back later this afternoon.

Patrick

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