[sc34wg3] Clarifying N0323

[Anthony B. Coates]

** Reply to message from Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no> on 06 Feb
2003 18:54:55 +0100

> * Anthony B. Coates
> | 
> | A similar serialisation for the RM would also be useful, e.g. to
> | compare that two topic map engines (or two versions of the same
> | engine) construct the same RM model from the same XTM input(s).
> 
> That assumes that we expect TM engines to actually construct RM
> instances. As far as I know that is not the case.

No, it wasn't my intention that the RM *must* be used by TM engines.  Using it
or not is clearly optional.  However, for those who choose to use, a canonical
RM serialisation in XML would be very useful, e.g. for mundane but important
things like checking that version M.(N+1) of a TM engine constructs the same RM
model that version M.N did.

	Cheers,
		Tony.
====
Anthony B. Coates, Information & Software Architect
mailto:abcoates@TheOffice.net
Reuters Messaging: abcoates.londonmarketsystems.com@reuters.net
====
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/
FpML AWG Member (Financial Products Markup Language), http://www.fpml.org/