[sc34wg3] Topic Maps land and SAM land

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> | I am not sure about 28, it may be 15 or 35 (the RM experts can tell
> | us the exact number),

The answer is that it depends on the TM Model (RM: application). More
precisely it depends on the way how a certain model 'decides' to interprete
a certain syntax. In the case of RDF it does not only depend on the
syntax but also on the semantics of the used namespaces but that is another
issue.

>  but the fact is that the nature of the things
> | that get asserted is completely different.
> 
> Please tell me more about it. Could someone give some examples, or
> show how/why this is so?

The structure of an assertion is explained in the RM prose. The mapping
from a given syntax to corresponding assertions is entirely part of the
definition of a TM model. So, a SAM defined in RM terms would include
a processing model for XTM, saying how all the element's are to be interpreted.
[Note that this does not constrain an implementation to any particular 
internal structure.]

> And is it not the case that you can actually
> choose when you design your RDF/RM mapping how many assertions you
> want to have a statement map to?

Yes, see above. The author(s) of a syntax processing model of a TM Model
make that choice.

Jan
> 
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org