[sc34wg3] Documenting merging rules in TMDM

[Kal Ahmed]

On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 15:08, Steve Pepper wrote:
> * Kal:
> | It seems to me that this kind of functionality could be done as part of
> | TMCL. I am thinking that there could be constraints such as if X is true
> | of topic A and Y is true of topic B then topic A and topic B must be
> | merged.
> | 
> | If TMCL does indeed build on TMQL then I think that we would end up with
> | a highly expressive language not only for constraining topic maps but
> | also for prescribing merging rules.
> 
> I agree that this would be one sensible approach -- and from
> Patrick's reply it is possible to infer that he would find
> this at least more acceptable than having the logic buried
> in the application.
> 
> So I think one important question the US National Body should
> answer is whether they believe that the facility for documenting
> merging rules has to be part of 13250 (and if so, why), or could
> it be part of ISO 19756 -- TMCL or ISO 18048 -- TMQL.
> 
> | I am thinking that there could be constraints such as if X is true
> | of topic A and Y is true of topic B then topic A and topic B must be
> | merged.
> 
> Hmm. This seems like a different use case than the ones I posted.
> Mine all equate to "if X is true of both A and B". Can you give
> a concrete example where you would need Y as well?
> 

if X==Y, then we are at the same point. An example might be explicit
merging rules for two topic maps where I know that the author of one
used a scoped base name for a uniquely identifying name and the author
of the other used a variant name with parameters for the uniquely
identifying name (or even used a specific typed occurrence!)

Cheers,

Kal

-- 
Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>
techquila