[sc34wg3] Section 5 Comments

[Martin Bryan]

Patrick suggested we change:

> REF: parid0271
>
> TXT:   This RM4TM constrains the definitions of "Topic Maps Applications
> (TM Applications)", establishing the criteria that such definitions must
> meet in order to facilitate the achievement of the Subject Location
> Uniqueness Objective, and to assure that topic maps can be interchanged,
> understood, and amalgamated predictably, regardless of their governing
> TM Applications, and regardless of the combinations of TM Applications
> that may govern the subjects represented by any single topic map graph
> that may result from amalgamating multiple topic maps.
>
> FIX: The definition of a TM Application is constrained by the following
> requirements in order to more closely approach the Subject Location
> Uniqueness Objective. While expressed in the language of the topic map
> graph, these constraints do not imply or impose any particular data
> structure or method of processing data upon a TM Application.

I'm not happy with the term "more closely approach" rather than acheive. Is
it the goal of RM to enforce SLUO, or only to permit it? If it is to enforce
it than the suggested term is not correct. If it is to permit it then
something more needs to be said about when it is permissible to just
"approach" the condition.

Martin Bryan
IS-Thought: Thinkers for the Information Society
29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK
Phone: +44 1452 714029 Fax: +44 1452 859991
E-mail: martin@is-thought.co.uk

Thought of the week:
Technology can waste as much time as it saves