[sc34wg3] CXTM Issue: Values
Lars Marius Garshol
larsga at garshol.priv.no
Thu May 15 07:31:58 EDT 2008
* Lars Heuer
> If my Topic Maps engine reads XTM / CTM / whatever and the source
> contains "0"^^xsd:boolean for an occurrence value and the engine
> returns "false" for the value of that occurrence if the user requests
> that value, this would be wrong according to the given Topic Maps
> standards, since the engine does not keep the "original" (string)
TMDM doesn't actually say what your API is supposed to return. It
can't do that, of course, and this is why it has no conformance
section. TMDM on its own doesn't do anything. It's only when you
couple together, say, CTM -> TMDM -> CXTM that you get some concrete
ruling on issues like this one. And in this case, with the 2008-04-14
CXTM draft, outputting "false" would be wrong.
Returning boolean false in your API, on the other hand, would be the
best possible way to represent this.
> Well, the CXTM tests are not part of the standard, right? My feeling
> is, that the spec. should be explicit and self-contained; so (3) seems
> to be the cleanest solution here.
Yes, I agree.
I propose then that:
(1) CXTM should explicitly recognize and canonicalize values belonging
to the types recognized by CTM and TMQL.
(2) The test suite will avoid testing canonicalization of values of
other types, to avoid penalizing tools which add specific support
Unless I hear anything to the contrary I'll do just this in today's
More information about the sc34wg3