[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| OK? If so, what does it mean? Is it OK for <scope> to appear here?
| For <topicMap/>? For <resourceData>?

* Robert Barta
| 
| My first reaction to this would be to use the super-annihilator on
| this person, deport his family to Alpha-centaurii and erase every
| record of their existence. Everything additional could be regarded
| as extreme.
| 
| :-)

Right. I take this as a vote for "allow XML in these elements so long
as it is not in the XTM namespace". Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| This is clearly OK, however:
| 
|   <resourceData>XTM is <xhtml:em>really</xhtml:em>
|   cool.</resourceData>
 
* Robert Barta
|
| This would mean that _every_ resource data is now XML and not any
| more an opaque sequence of characters? Even images or LaTeX data?
| Can I flag that what is NOT xmlish?

The answer to this isn't fully decided yet. Graham and I are to
produce some proposals for data model changes that will make this
clear, and then the committee will consider those in Philadelphia.

Those not going to Philadelphia are of course invited to chime in with
their views on the proposals, once we get to that point in the
document queue.
 
| And obviously must it be well-formed then to make the whole instance
| wf-ed.

Yes.

| But what if I want
|     <occurrence>
|        <scope topicRef="#theBegin">
|        <resourceData>This is my <x:opening> tag for may fancy application</resourceData>
|     </occurrence>
| 
|     <occurrence>
|        <scope topicRef="#theEnd">
|        <resourceData>This is my </x:opening> tag for may fancy application</resourceData>
|     </occurrence>

XTM would not allow this, and could not allow it, either. Since the
occurrences of a topic have no particular order I don't think this is
a meaningful thing to want, anyway.
 
| And a TM processor would store it as o DOM o XML fragment o String?

That would be up to the processor. It would just have to preserve the
information the TMDM requires it to preserve, and right now we're not
100% sure what that will be.
 
| And a TMCL would be able to touch/constrain data in it? What about
| TMQL, does it offer now access to this? If not, why not, when that
| would be 'standard'?

Good questions. So far not answered. It would not surprise me if TMCL
allowed you to connect an XML schema to XML occurrences, and if TMQL
allowed XPath queries, but that's definitely still open. IMHO these
are issues for the TMQL/TMCL folks to discuss and work out what they
think of.
 
| Between the 0% ( = 'dont embed data at all') and 100% (= 'fully
| embed data'), <resourceData/> is somewhere around the 1%. This move
| would now make it 10%. I would rather prefer a more non-adhoc-ish
| solution to be somewhere around 90%, while being clueless how this
| can/should be achieved.

I think we pretty much agree there. The solution to reaching 100% is
to have the TM tools support it. There are TM tools out there today
that let you make applications that appear to support embedding
anything at all in the topic map (images, sound, XML, HTML, ...), but
that is of course achieved via URI references and tools that support
upload/download/update etc.

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