[sc34wg3] Requirements for the foundational model - level 1

Martin Bryan sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:21:09 -0000


Some questions on your draft text for the requirements:

>   1.. The data model shall define all logically relevant aspects of topic
map information (including all strings and locators). Anything that is not
explicitly part of the model shall not considered to be part of topic maps.

Who is to decide what is and is not "logically relevant"? For example, Sort
Names are not considered "logically relevant" by the XTM community, but are
an explicit logical unit within ISO 13250. One of the problems we have been
having is that as people try to "simplify" the model we are loosing the
ability to distinguish between data sets that need to be separately managed.
Who is to make the decision as to what can and cannot be managed within a
topic map?

>   3.. The data model shall be written in such a way that third parties can
write specifications defining the process of building instances of the model
from data sources other than the two standardized topic map syntaxes.

Is ISO 13250 really a standardized syntax? I always thought that one of its
strengths was the way it was divorced from application syntaxes.

>   2.. The foundational model shall be 100% compatible with every aspect of
the implicit data model of XTM 1.0 that is actually defined in the XTM 1.0
specification. This includes annex F.

What happens if some aspect of ISO 13250 is not covered by the model (e.g.

>   5.. The foundational model shall be able to represent all logically
significant aspects of ISO 13250 topic map documents.

Who is to decide on the significance of any 13250 construct?

>   6.. The foundational model shall not contradict any constraints on the
model laid down by ISO 13250, except in so far as they are contradicted by
XTM 1.0. In cases of discrepancy XTM 1.0 shall take precedence.

You cannot really expect me to accept the inflammatory statement in the
second sentence !!!!!

>   7.. The foundational model shall be 100% compatible with the
interpretation of the ISO 13250 syntax as defined in ISO 13250.

How can this statement (which has my whole-hearted support) be reconciled
with the previous one?

>   9.. The parsing model shall be defined in terms of the XML Information

Surely this will be insufficient: we will need to extend the Information Set
to distiguish between topic map constructs.

Martin Bryan