[sc34wg3] Topic Maps land and SAM land

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Jan Algermissen
| 
| The current official draft of the SAM is based on XML infoset. 

No, it's not. It uses the information set formalism, which the XML
Infoset also does, but there is no connection with the XML Infoset in
it, nor should there be. It's a data model, and so it does not concern
itself with syntax in any way.

| And XML infoset is what the current SAM's underlying processing
| model is. 

The term "processing model" has been abandoned because it is not very
useful. Anything you do with a topic map is processing, so "processing
model" then means "a model for anything you want to do with a topic
map", which isn't really a very helpful term.

The SAM is a data model. In addition, there is an XTM syntax
specification that contains a specification of how XTM instances are
to be deserialized into SAM instances. But that's not part of the SAM,
although it *does* use the XML Infoset.

| Without such a thing, it is impossible to make any sense of a
| processed syntax.

Well, I'm not sure the RM needs to concern itself with syntax. The XTM
syntax spec already does that job, so all RM needs to tackle is the
much easier job of dealing with SAM.
 
| Suppose we wanted to define the SAM in RM terms, it would absolutely
| make sense to me to still base the processing model for XTM on XML
| infoset.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that a SAM
expressed in RM terms would also need to have the XTM syntax
specification in it? (Why? And what about HyTM and LTM?) Or what?
(There's too many possible interpretations of this for me to list them
all.) 

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