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

[Robert Barta]

> Robert Barta wrote:
> > 1) We do not burden the _data model_ with these things. I would assume that
> >    all attempts to handle this gracefully have failed, because it is simply
> >    not the right place to do.

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 12:35:37PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> The RM says that two topics that have the same subject must be merged and
> that the decision if two topics represent the same subject is entirely
> made on the basis of SIDPs. The RM also says that the definition of
> SIDPs is within the realm of the semantics that govern a given topic map.
> 
> I see not burdon on the data model (the RM data model) at all. Can you
> explain?

RM does not seem to have this burden, yes. To which degree TMDM has it
I cannot say right now.

> > 2) Enourmous flexibility. The above equivalence relation between topics
> >    is induced by names in scopes. But I can use _any_ rule which is possible
> >    in AsTMa! to induce other equivalences
> 
> Well sure. Given an API that has a method for merging two topics I can
> implement an unlimited number of applications that read rules and
> do merges.
> 
> The issue is standardization and interchange of information, it is not
> the question how to built applications that merge topics.

I completely agree. Giving out APIs to implement magic merging rules
limits the interchangability. And: I cannot reason about the rules if
they are coded in Java.

\rho