[sc34wg3] Topic Maps land and SAM land

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Jan Algermissen
| 
| A 'processing model' in terms of the RM is a 'deserialization
| specification' in terms of the SAM. 

Looking at the current RM draft I see that you are right. That
disappoints me a little (I would have liked us to use consistent
terminology, and at least have a discussion before we change parts of
the terminology we have in common), as MB and SRN agreed to drop that
term in Berlin, but I'll make that part of my formal comments on the
RM and we can discuss it in that context.

| So, all the RM is saying is this: For every syntax that a TM Model
| defines there must be a deserialization specification that defines
| how the syntax is to be interpeted in terms of the semantics of the
| model.

Hmmm. This sounds strange to me. Models are models, and they are
independent of any particular syntax. Syntaxes are syntaxes, and may
have mappings to multiple models. So I don't really see that this
restriction is meaningful in any way.

I guess part of the confusion here is about how the RM is intended to
be used. It's beginning to sound rather like a set of guidelines for
creating identity-based standards families. Is that right? Even if it
is I think a rule like this will have to be defined more clearly, and
even so can't possibly be a "hard" rule, since its application will
depend on subjective judgement.
 
| I suspect that the word 'defines' causes the wrong impression that
| the syntaxes are an essential part of the TM Model. What is really
| meant is that in order to deserialize the information that is
| contained in instances of a particular syntax into an instance of a
| particluar TM Model a deserialization specification (aka processing
| model) is to be defined.

But isn't that tautological? I mean, how could anyone fail to satisfy
that criterion?
 
| I assume that this POV is not different from the SAM's, yes?

In one sense not, and in another sense it is. SAM doesn't say
*anything* about syntaxes; it's not even aware that they exist. So if
a syntax wants to declare a mapping from itself to the SAM, that's
fine, and if it does not, that's fine, too. 

SAM is a tool that allows syntax definitions to say what they want,
but so long as they do not violate the structural rules of the SAM
they can say what they want.

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Well, I'm not sure the RM needs to concern itself with syntax. The XTM
| syntax spec already does that job, 
 
* Jan Algermissen
|
| Do you mean XTM 1.0?

No, I mean this document:
  <URL: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0328.htm >
 
Which, according to the plan in N0323, is going to replace the XTM 1.0
specification. 
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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?
 
* Jan Algermissen
|
| No, no! But I agree that the RM might cause this expression and
| should seperate the issue of TM Model and desrialization
| specifications.

I'm still lost, sorry. The "RM might cause" what? And doesn't it
already consider a TM model to be something different from a
deserialization specification? I'm not trying to be difficult, but you
assume I know more about what the thinking behind the RM is than I
actually do.

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