[sc34wg3] CTM Comments

[Robert Barta]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Lars Heuer wrote:
> > - reification
> >   I still wonder why this is not
> >   mymap ~ ctm:self
> 
> It is now settled to
> 
>    ~ mymap
>    descr: "This is my first map"
> 
> 
> The notation you propose wouldn't work, since ctm:self will be
> expanded to a subject identifier and the code above will say:
> 
>    The topic with the subject identifier "ctm:self" *reifies* the
>    topic with the identifier "mymap".

Ah! The way I had thought it would work is that ctm:self automatically
expands to the baseURI of the map. And using ~ would signal that this
URI is used as subject identifier. Which is perfect for maps, not?

That way it would not be a "new syntax" such as

  ~ mymap

but along the general pattern

  topic-id ~ someURI ~ someOtherURI

> > - 3.3.6
> 
> >   For reifier which should find something 'arrow-ish'
> 
> >    ~~>
> >    ~> ... whatever
> 
> >   which can be reversed
> 
> Hmm.... The general agreement in Oslo was, that the reification
> mechanism should not add too much syntax. BTW: CTM does not support
> 'forward' reification, but even with "~" it should be possible to
> support reification in both directions.

How?

> > - 3.9
> >   I again propose ! instead of -.
> 
> Reasons? IMO the hyphen is very nice because it is aligned to the
> general notation of enumeration in texts. An exclamation mark catches
> more attention that it should.

OK, that is probably a matter of taste. The memnonic for "!" for me would be

  ! Use That Name

The dash is very generic, unspecific for names.

> > - 3.9
> 
> >   I again propose that ""s are dropped where not necessary. I will
> >   re-raise this as issue.
> 
> Personally I agree 100% with you, but CTM has other requirements and
> the committee agrees that we need a consistent syntax for strings. The
> notation won't change. "Der Drops is gelutscht"

But it is still sour in the mouth :-)

If there are no scope or reification for this, as in the 99% of the cases,
then it is completely superfluous.

> > - 3.18 and 3.17
> 
> >   I still wonder whether it should be possible to merge the two into one
> > mechanism.
> 
> IMO it is not possible since the include-process is very much
> different from the mergemap-process. The current CTM draft is not very
> circumstantial about the differences but the next CTM draft will
> explain it in more detail. You could use the same *directive name*
> with different arguments, but having two directives is more explicit.

Hmmm, let's have another look later.

--

Goodie, thx, we are getting somewhere.

\rho