parid0423 | 18 Nov 2002 23:47:34 
OK, so
a) associations do not map directly to RM assertions, and
b) their structure is normalized so that the original 
structure is entirely lost.
Both are entirely OK, and consistent with the SAM, but I wanted to
check that I had understood your diagram correctly.
—larsga@garshol.priv.no
parid0423 | Sat, 22 Feb 2003 21:00:12
syntax processing model
syntax processing procedures
No need to introduce the confusing "model" here. See also parid0294, parid0398, parid0399, parid0423, parid0970, parid0971, parid0989, parid2014, parid2226. REF: parid0402 TXT: A list of syntactic constructs ("node demanders") whose instances can be unambiguously addressed within the instances of the syntax must be provided. FIX: The Syntax Processing Procedures must provide a list of syntactic constructs ("node demanders") whose instances can be unambiguously addressed within the instances of the syntax must be provided.
—shunting@etopicality.com
parid0423 | Sat, 22 Feb 2003 21:00:12
Very unclear. "If" seems to imply that there are other ways of constructing a topic map graph than from topic map interchange syntax. (Actually, we know of one already -- "endowment" in parid0421.) But if that is so, where is the checklist item for defining it? In what way is "output" "added"? Is that merging? And the grpah is an output?
—shunting@etopicality.com
parid0423 | Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:39:19
If the graph is being constructed from an instance of an interchange syntax, the Syntax Processing Model defined by the governing TM Application must be applied to the instance, with the output being added to the well-formed topic map graph that is under construction.
If this is going to the graph, this should be first.
—pdurusau@emory.edu