[sc34wg3] CTM for non-SVO languages

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Lars,

> * Lars Heuer
>>
>> (We've one more meaningful EOL problem in the current draft (the
>> mergemap directive), but this is easy to solve and is not a big
>> problem at all.)

> Could you expand on this? I'm satisfied that we'll get rid of  
> meaningful EOLs for topic blocks one way or the other, but this sounds
> like it's not completely done yet. Maybe we could get it out of the  
> way now while we're at it?

Sure, currently we have the problem that that the mergemap directive
is specified as follows:

   mergemap ::= %mergemap iri notation?
   notation ::= iri

If we keep a meaningful EOL (that means the mergemap directive must
not span more than one line), there is no problem to parse this, but
if we remove the meaningful EOL, we get some problems because the
optional notation may be interpreted as subject identifier.

We discussed this issue already a bit, but we didn't come to a
conclusion:
<http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2007-November/003523.html>

I like

  mergemap ::= %mergemap iri notation
  notation ::= string

Other thoughts, ideas, comments?

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