[sc34wg3] SAM issue: locator-notation-support

[Ann Wrightson]

In my opinion the SAM should not absolutely require any specific locator
notation(s) - not even URIs. However, the conformance section of SAM
should state that the conformance statement for a conforming application
must include what locator notation(s) it supports.

Use case: I see no reason why a topic map application that is designed
to operate using some industry-sector-specific resource location and
identity scheme (eg some future standard for highly secure private
networks), should be required to support a notation that is irrelevant
to that environment, in order to conform to SAM.=20

Ann W.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Pepper [mailto:pepper@ontopia.net]=20
Sent: 12 February 2003 15:44
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Subject: [sc34wg3] SAM issue: locator-notation-support


The current editors' working copy of the SAM at
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/ there is an issue called
"locator-notation-support" (section 3.1).

Apart from URIs, does the SAM need to support any other locator
notations explicitly? (Other notations can be used, but the SAM
currently doesn't standardize names for any except URIs.)

Steve

_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3