[sc34wg3] A plea for CTM and a request for more input on requirements and evaluation

[Kal Ahmed]

Some comments:

(h) -- I think this should be interpreted as meaning that it should be 
possible to format CTM (with whitespace and line-separator characters) 
to make it easy to read. Its always possible to write hard-to-read 
code...even in Python ;-)

(q) -- I don't think this should be a requirement for CTM - I think it 
would more be a requirements that any graphical notation should cover 
TMDM. Then CTM "integration" with a graphical notation would be a 
logical conclusion.

(v) -- XTM -> TMDM -> CTM and back is not necessarily a lossless 
transformation. For example XTM -> TMDM loses information about the 
grouping of topic references under association roles and the nesting of 
variant names.

Two more requirements that I think you should consider:

1) CTM must support the creation of modular topic maps with minimal 
"import" mechanism. Something like LTM's INCLUDE directive.

2) CTM must support the inclusion of author comments within a CTM file, 
and support the "commenting-out" of CTM constructs.

Cheers,

Kal

Gabriel Hopmans (Morpheus) wrote:

> Hello All,
> I just want to start a new thread/discussion item about CTM but now 
> with a more gentle introduction. I think we now had for the moment 
> enough discussion about a need for CTM . I will use several points 
> made to prepare work (discussion items, requirements, issues, 
> evaluations) for the ISO meeting in Montreal so that you can make 
> decisions. Hopefully others in Montreal will see/understand and some 
> others will underline the need so that we will agree upon the need for 
> CTM.
>  
> First of all CTM is *not* going be a syntax for the 'general 
> end-users'. And then I define the general end-users as persons without 
> technical skills or Topic Maps experience etc.. just a general user. 
> CTM is mainly intended to be used by 'technies' to make their life 
> easier. (and thus agreeing what Jim Mason wrote earlier and inline 
> with the thread discussion that Lars Marius started yesterday with the 
> subject CTM: the arguments for standardisation).
> As last point XTM stays the basis for interchange
>  
>  Now a new request:
> - can you provide us with more requirements for CTM?
> (BTW, thanks for those who provided input)
> - please if you have experience with it give feedback on the use of 
> LTM, AsTMa=?
> (This to find the strengths of the languages and get them in the new 
> CTM. And to eliminate the weaknesses.)
>  
> The latest version of the requirements collected so far are available at:
> http://www.mssm.nl/tmp/2005.07.22CTM-reqs.txt
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Gabriel
>  
> Gabriel Hopmans
> Morpheus Software