[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position onthe progress ion of Topic Map standards

[Bernard Vatant]

Kal

> I believe that the four parts of ISO 13250 in progress at the moment
> address all four of your points, but as you noted, there is currently no
> way for an application to specify merging rules declaratively.

I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "specify merging rules declaratively", but it
sounds to me a sort of paradox. From the recent thread about merging rules, what I
understood was that the debate was about having or not merging rules *at all* in the core
standard, since they are procedural specifications.

And seems to me that Jim's point is to ask for a RM which would contain only declarative
semantics, and not procedural specification.

Jim, correct me if I am wrong, do you mean that in your opinion there should not be
anything like merging rules defined in the RM ? (if this is the case, I fully agree with
you)

Bernard