[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes
Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:28:19 +0200
At 00:17 07/09/02 +0200, Marc wrote:
>* Steve Pepper
>| Let's have Level Zero
>| (0) At the level of the application.
>This is "Let's ditch the TNC" phrased politely, not? :-)
Not entirely. I envisage that the TNC would live on in the form of
normative rules defining how to do (one kind of) name-based merging.
>I think it would be a big mistake to leave the TNC up to applications. The TNC
>supports some very generic behaviours that merit a place in the standard. As I
>have said before, I do agree the TNC should be optional (and at level (2)).
[(2) being the level of individual scopes.] My mind is not yet made up on
this. I guess the main reason I'm holding back on both (1) [level of the topic
map itself] and (2) is that I would really like to decouple the 'namespace'
aspect of scope and the 'contextual validity' aspect of scope. Mixing the
two already tends to cause choas and confusion, and this will get worse when
the time comes (as I believe it will) to make scope more expressive.
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <email@example.com>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3 Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246