[sc34wg3] RM4TM SLUO : Objective or Requirement?

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
26 Nov 2002 00:54:16 +0100

* Steven R. Newcomb
| It's true that we must specify, in the Syntax Processing Model for
| XTM, [...]

Just for the record: the term we agreed on in Berlin, and that has
been used in ISO documents since was Deserialization Specification.

(No comments on the rest, since I agree with all of it.)

| I have only one tiny, purely editorial complaint with what you've
| said above: you're blurring the definition of "fully merged" with
| "the full achievement of the Subject Location Uniqueness Objective".
| "Fully merged" is supposed to be used only to describe the result of
| the SIDP-based merging process -- nothing more than that.

In that case you need to change the definition in section 3.9, since
it says explicitly that

  " In a fully merged topic map graph, every subject is represented by
  a single node."

which amounts to meeting SLUO fully and goes way beyond what the SIDPs
can ever hope to achieve.
| (I really can't complain too much about the fact that you're
| blurring this distinction.  We blurred the same distinction in
| Informative Annex A, and we blurred it very thoroughly indeed.  I
| think we should either edit Annex A, or characterize this Annex as
| "Misinformatively Oversimplified" instead of "Informative".)

Sounds like you should edit it. :-)

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >