parid0025 | Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:08:22
My concern is also to know if an axiomatization of RM4TM as a mathematical graph will meet a documented and well-known type of graph, or some weird form that nobody has cared to study yet. >I will investigate on all that, and could report in Baltimore if I am >given the >opportunity to do it. As an invited expert on this mailing list, you are also an invited expert to any WG3 meeting, including the one to be held in Baltimore. The Reference Model will be discussed in depth on the Monday, so I suggest you try and attend on that day at least. As convenor of WG3 I would be happy to give you some time to present your findings, but you should be aware that there will probably be a lot going on on that day, so be prepared to squeeze your report into a fairly short time, perhaps as little as half an hour (including discussion). I will be suggesting that Steve N and Michel take charge of the agenda for most of Monday (once we have some other minor details out of the way). Steve -- Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer
parid0025 | Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:28:22
Question en paasant : Why not use the word "topic" instead of "node" throughout? To what extent is the above different of all the existing prose in ISO 13250, XTM 1.0, Published Subjects TC ... "In a topic map, a topic is the formal representation of a single subject". The notion of having nodes in the TMG representing "implicit" subjects that are not topics in the corresponding topic map is IMO extremely confusing and hard to grasp.
parid0025 | Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:13:01
you shouldn't have a complete sentence as a heading, particularly when you repeat it as the first sentence of the following paragraph.