[sc34wg3] Comments on XTM 2.0

Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:12:55 +0100

I would like to remind everyone that we want 13250-3 to go to
FDIS on March 1st. So far there have only been two sets of
comments. Please take a careful look at the draft and see if
you have anything to add, and please make your position known
on the comments received so far, so that the editors can
start to make any changes that are necessary.

Remember, we are defining the interchange syntax. In some
ways this is the most visible part of the whole standard, so
make sure you are happy with the result!

The comments so far are:

  1. Version number should be 2.0
  2. GI for names should be <name>, not <topicName>
  3. Error in DTD (content model of topicName)
  4. Added scope on <mergeMap> should be reinstated

The first three of these are in my email, attached below.
The fourth was the subject of a protracted discusion on
the mailing list under the heading "Removing added scope
from <mergeMap>". See the archives at
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2006-January/subject.html
for the full discussion.

Please make your views known as soon as possible!

The text is at http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)

-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
[mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]On Behalf Of Steve Pepper
Sent: 11. januar 2006 02:31
To: WG3 mail list
Subject: [sc34wg3] Comments on XTM 2.0

The plan is to go to FDIS ballot on 13250 Part 3 early enough that
we have the result in time for the next meeting of WG3, which takes
place in Seoul, Korea on May 29-June 1 2006.

This means that we have until the end of February to make comments
on the XTM draft and discuss any issues arising.

I urge everyone to give http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/ a
thorough review.

Here are my comments:

1. Version number should be 2.0
-------------------------------

Now that we've decided to break backwards compatibility and make
some quite radical changes, we should up the version to 2.0, not
1.1. This would reflect that the changes are substantial. It would
also, I think, better convey our intent that the schema remain
stable from now on. "1.1" implies that there could well be a 1.2
or a 2.0, whereas "2.0" is often associated with the first release
of the *real* version of a product (after the bugs have been
ironed out of 1.0, which really is the case here).

This is a marketing argument, of course. However, I cannot think of
any technical arguments why we should only go to 1.1. Are there
any?

2. GI for names should be <name>, not <topicName>
-------------------------------------------------

I see no reason to use a longer GI when a shorter one will do. We
talk about "names, occurrences, and associations", so why would we
choose <topicName> to go with <occurrence> and <association>?

Perhaps because that is the name of the corresponding information
item in TMDM? If that's the reason, the same logic should apply to
<role>, which should then be changed to <associationRole>.

But I don't think this is necessary: The <role> element is a
direct subelement of <association>, so its meaning is clear enough.
The same applies to <name>, which is a direct subelement of
<topic>.

Shorter is better.

3. Error in DTD (content model of topicName)
--------------------------------------------

  <!ELEMENT topicName
     ( itemIdentity*, instanceOf?, scope?, value, variant* )
  >

instanceOf should be required, not optional, as it is elsewhere
(including the normative RELAX-NG schema).

Otherwise, I think XTM 2.0 looks very much better than 1.0. My
congratulations to the editors!

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)

_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3