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

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Graham Moore
| 
| 3. This issue I think is the biggy and is the issue that has
| troubled me for many months. The RM, simply put, has more nodes than
| the SAM. It has more things although less types. The SAM actively
| hides some nodes that a RM view exposes. Thus taking a RM model and
| viewing it as the SAM means that some things are NOT addressable. My
| feeling is that this is exactly what should be happening. 

I felt the same way, and had the same worry for a long time. When
talking about this with SRN face to face, however, he told me felt it
was OK that the SAM did not have all the nodes the RM does. For me
that was all the reassurance I needed, as I agree with you that this
is the way we want it.

| The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
| underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of
| all Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant
| RM nodes and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!

Yikes indeed.

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