|
parid0294
| Sat, 22 Feb 2003 14:47:27
the procedures for constructing topic map graphs from instances of
each syntax ("Syntax Processing Models"), and "node demander" rules that
allow topic map graph nodes to be indirectly addressed by addressing their
corresponding syntactic constructs.
the procedures ("Syntax Processing Procedures") for constructing a
topic map graph from an instance of each syntax, including "node demander"
rules that allow topic map graph nodes to be indirectly addressed by
addressing one or more of their corresponding syntactic constructs.
The wording as it stands permits more than one graph to be
constructed from an instance of the same "SPP". See parid0398 for comments
on "Syntax Processing Model".
parid0294
| Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:30:41
If the TM Application defines one or more interchange syntaxes,
the procedures for constructing topic map graphs from instances of each
syntax ("Syntax Processing Models"), and "node demander" rules that
allow topic map graph nodes to be indirectly addressed by addressing
their corresponding syntactic constructs. (See parid0393 5.2.10.)
Wondering if "Syntax Processing Model" is the right term? I read this to mean that a TM Application must provide a "mapping" (sorry, could not thing of another word) of the syntax to the nodes, properties and arcs of the topic map graph. I suppose you can call that a "processing model" but is more nearly a transformation or perhaps simply a mapping of the syntax to the topic map graph? If that is the case, couldn't we include "node demanders" which must be represented in the topic map graph in the definition of that mapping? That is to say, the mapping must include... and then list the things the mapping must include, such as node demanders. I take that to be the intent of the current language, although stated as something separate from the "Syntax Processing Model." |