[sc34wg3] Requirements for the foundational model - level 1

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
06 Nov 2001 18:20:07 +0100

* Graham Moore
| It is interesting to consider this balancing act - how much can be
| made generally first class before we end up with names and
| properties.

It's called RDF, isn't it? :-)

| The issue of defering to XTM leads me on to my last point - we
| should realise here that both 13250 and XTM are under specified
| becuase they do not rigerously define a data model. 

Very much agreed. That's why we need to perform this exercise now.

| It is possible that as we construct this data model things will
| appear to us that have not previously been seen. I liken this to
| testing the XTM samples in the XTM 1.0 spec where we found that the
| DTD was nonsense in some places. Until you iron out the ambiguities
| by doing something in a rigouress fashion then I think we should not
| necessarily defer to XTM or 13250 -but to the model.

I think I agree with this, but could you explain what you mean by
deferring not "to XTM or 13250, but to the model"? Do you mean that we
should defer to the model we are defining? How is that possible, when
it doesn't exist yet?

--Lars M.