[sc34wg3] Re: SAM: Topic Identity

[Murray Altheim]

kal@techquila.com wrote:
> Murray Altheim writes:
[...]
> My issue was that SAM would allow
> []
> or
> <topic/>
> 
> Which the syntaxes do not allow. Of course, one could create a syntax which
> did allow this but unless there is a convincing reason why such constructs
> should be supported by the model, the model should be tightened up to
> prevent it.

Ah, understood. Yes, I agree. The approach in XTM with requiring a
unique ID value guaranteed that at minimum there was a unique topic
node, which is the beginning point of its graph inclusion. I can't
off the top of my head remember the name, but it was like Steve N.
or Eliot's diagrams that have a point around which topic characteristics
are attached. You gotta have that point or there's nothing to attach
things to. It could be argued that the XML element <topic> (absent an
'id' attribute) might be able to play that role, but there's no unique
location in the document, no addressable point, given that the order
of elements in an XTM document is not significant (so therefore it's
impossible to address the node absent an ID).

Thanks,

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                         http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK                    .

           "The current and future international political
            environment severely constrains this country's
            ability to conduct long-range strike missions." -- DARPA
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3035332.stm