[sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>

[Kal Ahmed]

I already proposed to the editors that if they wanted to remove mergeMap
from XTM, then they should also define a separate "packaging" syntax and
standard processing rules that would allow a set of topic map merging
operations to be declared in an interchangeable form. An "XTM-Package"
syntax if you like. They didn't seem to be too happy with that suggestion,
and to be honest I think it's a bit of a fudge, but I thought I should raise
it in this open forum too.

IMO unless the ability to declare topic map merges is provided in some
format (whether it is part of XTM 2.0 or a separate syntax), the next
version of ISO 13250 will lose a valuable piece of functionality that is
present in the current version. And this would be a grave mistake.

Cheers

Kal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org [mailto:sc34wg3-
> admin@isotopicmaps.org] On Behalf Of Kal Ahmed
> Sent: 16 January 2006 13:42
> To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject: FW: [sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>
> 
> Forwarded on behalf of Graham.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Moore [mailto:graham.moore@networkedplanet.com]
> Sent: 16 January 2006 13:38
> To: kal.ahmed@networkedplanet.com
> Subject: FW: [sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to post this but it didnt appear. Any chance you can post this
> from
> me.
> 
> gra
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Moore [mailto:graham.moore@networkedplanet.com]
> Sent: 14 January 2006 09:44
> To: 'sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org'
> Subject: RE: [sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>
> 
> 
> I dont think that Lars Marius and I disagree with the value of being able
> to
> attribute accountability or Scope when merging topic maps.
> 
> The decision for removing it from the syntax was two fold:
> 
> 1. we really were aiming for an interchange syntax and not an authoring
> syntax and to this end were looking to remove constructs that 'did stuff'.
> We wanted to remove mergemap altogether.
> 
> 2. In general we wanted all processing and semantics to be external of the
> representation syntax, i.e. Applications or external declaration language.
> We were thinking about a family of syntaxes where interchange was strickly
> representation.
> 
> I want clean lines of distinction, modularisation, of the models and
> syntaxes in the ISO Topic Maps family of standards. MergeMap is not
> something I dont want, it is something that doesn't belong in the
> representation syntax.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Graham
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org [mailto:sc34wg3-
> admin@isotopicmaps.org]
> On Behalf Of Murray Altheim
> Sent: 13 January 2006 21:37
> To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Cc: Kal Ahmed
> Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>
> 
> Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:
> > I'm with Kal and Steve on this.
> >
> > There are times when I use <mergemap> as a simple file include like
> > the troff ".so" directive, when I am trying to do something with my
> > file modularization. Then the results of merging probably don't need
> > to know where they came from.
> >
> > But one of the original goals of developing TMs was merging indices.
> > Then it's of critical importance to know where things came from. It's
> > all part of scholarly accountability to know the provenance of
> > concepts. So if merging destroys that, it destroys one of the main
> > reasons for having TMs in the first place.
> >
> > (If you don't think knowing the sources for things is important, go
> > look at the recent controversy over the lies inserted into the
> > Wikipedia article on John Siegenthaler. I've known John since back in
> > the '60s, and I knew those things were wrong, but lots of people
> > couldn't have known that someone had been messing with his bio.)
> >
> > Jim Mason
> 
> I believe I also responded to this issue earlier as regards requirements
> for
> modularization (which to head off any remarks, has *nothing* to do with
> authoring and all to do with distribution of interchange files). Scope on
> merging is an important requirement for modularization for reasons very
> similar to those cited by Jim above, i.e., being able to merge components
> of
> a working ontology but be able to separate those components following an
> edit (such as being able to extract the core and middle ontologies after
> editing a lower ontology, where in order to even load the lower the rest
> must be loaded).
> 
> Murray
> 
> ......................................................................
> Murray Altheim                          http://www.altheim.com/murray/
> Strategic Systems Development Manager
> The Open University Library and Learning Resources Centre
> The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .
> 
>       Short of taking the current president of the United States
>       by the scruff of the neck and dunking his head deep into the
>       rapidly melting Arctic ice cap, what more did the Earth need
>       to do to make someone listen to its cry for help?
>                                  -- Simon Schama, The Story So Far
>       http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1675173,00.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>