[sc34wg3] Modularization

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Kal Ahmed
| 
| In fact I do not agree with the assertion that "all implementations
| are the same". 

I agree completely. SAM as currently written leaves implementors
considerable flexibility with regard to how they want to approach
topic maps. 

| TM4J, for example exposes the merging of topics as the aggregation
| of multiple Topic objects, rather than taking the TMAPI approach of
| one Topic object per subject. I am sure that the way in which TM4J
| represents scope is different from other implementations too.

And there are many other differences. All of which are acceptable and
fine and entirely the way things should be.

| What all implementations do have in common is that there are
| representations of the topics, topic characteristics, associations
| and scope, and it is the semantics of these constructs that the
| topic map standard must concern itself with.

Again I agree completely, but I think what Michel is arguing is that
the standard must have an inherent flexibility that allows it to
change easily and accomodate data models that are structured in other
ways. The SAM does not attempt to do that, and I don't see it as
something that can be achieved in a meaningful way, but obviously
Michel does.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >