[sc34wg3] TMDM / XTM 2.0 comments

[Lars Heuer]

Hi all,

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but IMO the <itemIdentity> element
on every topic map construct blows the XTM unnecessarily up.

I'd like to refer to my questions reg. "TMDM / XTM 2.0 vs. XTM 1.0
"reification" procedure" dtd. 18.02.2006. It seems to me, that at
least the situation where a topic has an item identifier that is used
as subject identifier by another topic should be an error or a merging
situation (see example 2 of the above mentioned mail).

I wonder why the item identifiers are necessary at the topic map
constructs != topic (see also my question dtd. 21.12.2005 "XTM 1.1 / TMDM
item identifiers").
Is it true, that they are only kept because nobody wants to (or can)
touch the TMDM again? Keeping item identifiers (and variants) seems to
ignore the whole potential of the "Atlanta decision"
(<http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0676.htm>), where the committe
has decided to break backwards compatibility (for XTM).

Keeping the item identifiers on topics may be nice, but for all other
topic map constructs I see no reason why they must have item
identifiers (reification is now solved without item identifiers).

Do I oversee something useful that cannot be archived without item
identifiers?

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