parid0271 | Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:26:55
Here is an example - around the area of subjectIndicators the RM has many more nodes to express subjectInidcatormess. If someone at the RM level makes an assertion about one of these nodes and then translates that into a SAM the SAM IS NOT able to maintain that information and it will be lost. Its becuase there are nodes in the RM that have no identifiable equivalent in the SAM. This means that : 3.1 SAM -> RM -> SAM (is loss-less) 3.2 RM -> SAM -> RM (is loss-less in cases where assertions arent made about items that have no identifiable node in the SAM.) I think this is ok and if its ok with everyone else then I dont really see that we have a problem. The implication, if the SAM must have a mechanism for accessing the underlying RM with ALL nodes present, is that ALL implementations of all Topic Map Models (SAM or otherwise) must maintain all relevant RM nodes and thus be implemented in terms of RM structures. Yikes!