[tmcl-wg] TMCL Discussion on IRC and 2nd meeting today: Mar 28!

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| What I understood during yesterday conversation is that TMCL would
| require that distinction, which means it would not support topic
| maps that would not make it. Somehow, it would mean that TMCL would
| be less "ontology-neutral" that ISO 13250 is, in the sense that it
| would not support some "exotic" types of topic maps that do not want
| to make classes and instances "a priori" distinct types, and stand
| on more "fuzzy", or less formal, ontologies.

I think you are right about this analysis, but I'm not sure how we can
avoid this "problem" if we are to really make a language for
expressing constraints on topic maps. We could go the Schematron route
and make a simple language consisting of TMQL query pairs, but that
would

 a) not be much of a language, and

 b) violate all the requirements I just posted about that require
    schema introspection.
 
Which is not to say that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, of
course. :)

| I'm not sure now (after a night of reflection) if that is what new
| bullet points decided for 1.1.2.4 mean. What I wanted to express
| was, if they mean actually that, "I can live with it", since I've
| not met so far effective operational implementation of topic maps
| that are not grounded on that class/instance distinction.

So we are all happy, then. :-)

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