[sc34wg3] TNC backward compatibility

[Steve Pepper]

At 21:36 05.03.2003 -0800, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
> > So the default should be that the TNC is not turned on by default.
>
>I am staying with YES because otherwise we are not backward compatible.

We have a backwards compatibility issue anyway, because a lot of people
simply ignored the TNC. Now we need to make sure that we don't perpetuate
the confusion. In my opinion the default should be the general case,
which is NO. This will be easier for people to understand and less prone
to error.

>Probably I tend to agree with Lars that neither one merges.

I agree.

> > By the way, the phrase "controlled vocabulary type" is a bit constricting.
> > The PSI defined in the SAM has the following identifier:
> >
> >    http://psi.topicmaps.org/sam/1.0/#unique-characteristic
> >
> > so I suggest we talk about "unique characteristic types" instead.
>
>Yes, I remember that. That also allows us to use scopes on
>subjectIndicators.

WHAT? You must explain this. I don't see how this affects scopes
on subject indicators.

>I am asking this question again because in this case subjectIdentity
>becomes syntactic sugar as we can use occurrences instead.
>I just want to make sure that everybody understand these consequences.

I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that without a *lot* more thought.
Given the crucial role of subject indicators, this could have quite
far-reaching consequences. I think we want to keep the notion of
subject identification as something quite separate, even though the
effects (in terms of merging) have points in common.

Steve