[sc34wg3] Reference Model to SAM - Mapping Issues and Thoughts

[Steven R. Newcomb]

On third thought, we need to talk more about this.  The
devil is in the details.  What I said in my first
response to your note was correct enough -- but
possibly not appropriate as a response to your note.
It depends on what you meant by your note, and now I'm
not sure what you meant.  (Strange.  It seemed
perfectly clear, and completely different, on two
different readings.  Now I *know* I don't know what you
meant.)

> Oops.  I screwed up.  I agree with Graham.  Sorry,
> Graham, I should have read your note more carefully:
> 
> > 3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less)
> 
> > 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in cases where
> > assertions arent made about items that have no
> > identifiable node in the SAM.)
> 
> > I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else
> > then I dont really see that we have a problem.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

Coolheads Consulting
http://www.coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA