Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many
more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level
makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into
a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be
lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable
equivalent in the SAM.
This means that :
3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in
cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable
node in the SAM.)
I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see
that we have a problem.
The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all
Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes
and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!

Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many
more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level
makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into
a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be
lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable
equivalent in the SAM.
This means that :
3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in
cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable
node in the SAM.)
I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see
that we have a problem.
The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all
Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes
and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!

Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many
more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level
makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into
a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be
lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable
equivalent in the SAM.
This means that :
3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in
cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable
node in the SAM.)
I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see
that we have a problem.
The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all
Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes
and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!

Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many
more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level
makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into
a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be
lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable
equivalent in the SAM.
This means that :
3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in
cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable
node in the SAM.)
I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see
that we have a problem.
The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all
Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes
and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!

Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many
more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level
makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into
a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be
lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable
equivalent in the SAM.
This means that :
3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in
cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable
node in the SAM.)
I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see
that we have a problem.
The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all
Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes
and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!

Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many
more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level
makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into
a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be
lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable
equivalent in the SAM.
This means that :
3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in
cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable
node in the SAM.)
I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see
that we have a problem.
The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the
underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all
Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes
and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!