[sc34wg3] XTM 1.1 issues

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Lars,

Only some short comments... :)
Due the lack of time I won't comment on everything now.

[...]
> --- <baseName>
[...]

>   2) <topicName>
>        <instanceOf>... <scope>...
>        <value>...</value>
>        <variant>...

> The editors prefer 2).

+1

> --- Reification

[...]
>   1) -reifier- attribute on anything that can be reified
>      cut ID from everything, except <topic>

>      bad: have to add everywhere, not consistent with general XTM 1.0
>           syntax design

I'd prefer this and loosing the [item identifiers] from everything
(except from topics).

> --- The -id- attributes

[...]
>   2) Lose from everything except topic

We should go with this. :)

Item identifiers do not add value to the other items.
In fact item identifiers do no really add a value to topics, but it
may be difficult to loose item identifiers in the TMDM for topics.

[...]
> --- <mergeMap>

> Another question is whether the <mergeMap> element really belongs in
> an interchange syntax. The capability for merging topic maps is
[...]

+1
For loosing the <mergeMap> element.
This is nothing that should be into an interchange syntax.

[...]
> --- <topicMap> content model

> Should we require <association>s to follow after the <topic>s? It
> seems tidier, however, it is more restrictive on software generating
> XTM (have to do all topics before you can do your first association).
> On consideration we reject this proposal.

I don't think that XTM should enforce <association>s behind <topic>s.
If an author wants assocs behind topics she can do it and ask her TM
processor to put them behind the topics (if the TM proc. supports
it).

[...]


Sorry for not commenting on the topics, maybe I come back later on
that (if it's not too late). :)

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://semagia.com