[sc34wg3] Fwd: Feedback on CTM requirements
Patrick Durusau
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:09:33 -0500
Lars,
A couple of nits:
The first sentence of the introduction reads:
"Compact Syntax Topic Map [CTM]
<http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0699.pdf> is a standard text-based
notation to represent topic maps conforming to ISO/IEC 13250:2000
[13250] <http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/>."
But, under 2.1 Relationship to other standards it says:
"5. CTM shall be based on the Topic Map Data Model."
Those are not quite the same.
Further, it says under 2.4 Semantics
"3. The definition of the underlying data MUST be based (directly or
indirectly) on the Topic Maps Data Model [TMDM].."
(BTW, note the doubled periods at the end of that sentence.)
TMQL has not seen fit (as far as I can tell) to limit itself to the TMDM
so I am uncertain why CTM is choosing to do so.
Seems to me a more generalized syntax would be more useful in the long run.
CTM certainly must be able to represent what one finds in the TMDM but
that is a starting and not an ending point. After all, it has often been
said that merging beyond that required by the TMDM is certainly possible
and that to me implies that properties beyond those defined by the TMDM
can legitimately exist in an otherwise TMDM based application. The TMDM
certainly does not prohibit such properties.
I will try read the requirements more closely later this week but those
are two issues that jumped out at me.
Thanks for the hard work!
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
Lars Heuer wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Gabriel Hopmans <gabriel.hopmans@gmail.com>
>Date: Feb 22, 2006 5:33 PM
>Subject: Feedback on CTM requirements
>To: WG3 mail list <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>
>
>Hello All,
>
>Today Sam Oh, Lars Heuer and I had a CTM meeting. We agreed that the current
>state of the requirements document fulfills the recommendations of Atlanta
>and that we can distribute it to others for feedback.
>
>The current document is now available at:
>
>http://www.mssm.nl/materials/tmp/CTM-requirements.html
>
>Next steps for us are amongst others: updating the use cases and making
>requests for new use cases.
>
>Feedback on the requirements is welcome,
>
>best regards,
>
>Gabriel
>
>
>===8<===========End of original message text===========
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hello Lars,
> Again it seems that my message has not been posted. Can you check this
> and if so:
> - otherwise post this message for us?
> - and then we also propose a new agenda item: how to improve the
> mailing list and its postings :)
>
> Maybe we also can make a request for more use cases?
>
> greetings,
> Gabriel
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Gabriel Hopmans* <gabriel.hopmans@gmail.com
> <mailto:gabriel.hopmans@gmail.com>>
> Date: Feb 22, 2006 5:33 PM
> Subject: Feedback on CTM requirements
> To: WG3 mail list <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> <mailto:sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>>
>
> Hello All,
>
> Today Sam Oh, Lars Heuer and I had a CTM meeting. We agreed that the
> current state of the requirements document fulfills the
> recommendations of Atlanta and that we can distribute it to others for
> feedback.
>
> The current document is now available at:
>
> http://www.mssm.nl/materials/tmp/CTM-requirements.html
> <http://www.mssm.nl/materials/tmp/CTM-requirements.html>
>
> Next steps for us are amongst others: updating the use cases and
> making requests for new use cases.
>
> Feedback on the requirements is welcome,
>
> best regards,
>
> Gabriel
>
>
>
>
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!