[sc34wg3] CXTM: More Issues

[Lars Heuer]

Hi all,

Comments against <http://www.isotopicmaps.org/cxtm/2008-04-14/>


3.5 Constructing a representation of a topic item
-------------------------------------------------
2.6.3.2.4.
"""
The position of the reified association role item [...]
"""

"reified" should be dropped from that sentence.


3.11 Constructing a representation of the [reifier] property
------------------------------------------------------------
"""
If the [reifier] property of an information item is null it is 
represented by the empty set. Otherwise it is represented as a set 
containing an attribute information item with the following properties:
"""

I stumbled over the term "set". I think it would be better, if the
instruction for each reifiable information item is changed from

    """
    A representation of the [reifier] property
    """

into

    """
    A representation of the [reifier] property, if any.
    """

and then change the above mentioned instruction into something like:

    """
    The [reifier] property of a reifiable information item is
    represented as an attribute information item with the following
    properties:
    """

or leave the reifier instruction of each reifiable Topic Maps
construct as it is and change 3.11 to:

    """
    If the [reifier] property of an information item is null it has no
    representation. Otherwise it is represented as an attribute
    information item with the following properties:
    """

Maybe drop "reifiable" from my proposal, since "reifiable" is not
clearly (normative) defined by the TMDM.


Generally: The rules 3.4 - 3.10 mention 

    """
    A representation of the [item identifiers] property, if any
    """

but the ", if any" seems to be superfluous because rule 3.14 states:

    """
    If the [item identifiers] property of an information item is empty
    it has no representation. [...]
    """

BTW, to be consistent with the whole spec., 3.14. should be changed to

    "[...] is the empty set [...]" 

maybe.


4.5 Comparison Order for Locators
---------------------------------
"""
Locators are compared in the same way as strings (see 4.3).
"""

I assume, the *normalized* locator value is compared? Since the rules
3.3 - 3.24 are applied first? Maybe this should be made more explict?
I am not sure about it. Section 3.1 clearly states that 3.3 - 3.24 are
applied first, but it would do no harm if 4.5 mentions that the
*normalized* locator values are compared.
Just as reminder for dummies like me, at least. :)

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