parid0271 | Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:26:55 
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!
—gdm@empolis.co.uk
parid0271 | Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:30:41
This RM4TM constrains the definitions of "Topic Maps Applications (TM Applications)", establishing the criteria that such definitions must meet in order to facilitate the achievement of the Subject Location Uniqueness Objective, and to assure that topic maps can be interchanged, understood, and amalgamated predictably, regardless of their governing TM Applications, and regardless of the combinations of TM Applications that may govern the subjects represented by any single topic map graph that may result from amalgamating multiple topic maps.
The definition of a TM Application is constrained by the following requirements in order to more closely approach the Subject Location Uniqueness Objective. While expressed in the language of the topic map graph, these constraints do not imply or impose any particular data structure or method of processing data upon a TM Application.
I suggest cutting this and other repetition of the amalgamation
theme. OK for a brief say in the introduction but out of place when
people want to learn the how and not the why.
—pdurusau@emory.edu
parid0271 | Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:07:14 
Patrick suggested we change:

> The definition of a TM Application is constrained by the following
> requirements in order to more closely approach the Subject Location
> Uniqueness Objective. While expressed in the language of the topic map
> graph, these constraints do not imply or impose any particular data
> structure or method of processing data upon a TM Application.


I'm not happy with the term "more closely approach" rather than acheive. Is
it the goal of RM to enforce SLUO, or only to permit it? If it is to enforce
it than the suggested term is not correct. If it is to permit it then
something more needs to be said about when it is permissible to just
"approach" the condition.
—martin@is-thought.co.uk