[sc34wg3] Semantics of subject, topic type, etc

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Murray Altheim
>
> I realize you weren't there for the XTM 1.0 discussions, but
> we very deliberately decided to create PSIs for all Topic Map
> constructs that we wanted to be able to distinctly reify, and
> no more than that.

Well. XTM 1.0 does not specify what can be reified. It hints that  
this is only topic characteristics, but that's clearly not what was  
actually intended, and even if it was it would be at odds with what  
core.xtm defines PSIs for.

In any case, you are referring to the state of Topic Maps  
standardization as it was in late 2000. Today what can and cannot be  
reified is defined by TMDM.

> As for formal semantics, I don't see that your blog entry is any
> more formal than the prose text of the XTM 1.0 prose text. [...]

I don't think I want to enter into a discussion about whether we can  
call this formal semantics or not.

--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian               http://www.ontopia.net
+47 98 21 55 50                             http://www.garshol.priv.no