[sc34wg3] Reading, commenting - and responding
Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:56:41 +0200
Martin Bryan wrote:
> Could I ask you to go one stage further and, rather than make the second
> example a simple one you try to desribe the original HyTime version of 13250
> using TMM. To me the ability to bring together a TMM for SAM and/or XTM and
> one for HyTM would be the proof that TMM really does make life easier for
> all concerned.
I see a (propably minor) misunderstanding here. Let me try to clarify:
A TMA provides (among other things) a set of semantics (assertion types)
that are needed to express knowledge (forgive me the use of the K-word)
of a certain domain.
XTM and HyTM both 'live' in the same domain, they use the semantics of
name,occurrence, class-instance and a few more. They both can 'transport'
topic maps that are goverened by the same TMA (the SAM).
To put this the other way round:
In order to deserialize XTM and HyTM an understanding of certain semantics
is required. This set of semantics is the SAM. (I cannot define how XTM/HyTM
are to be processed unless I understand (for example) what the notion of
In my understanding the ideal 13250 would consist of
- the RM
- the SAM (the chief of TMAs as SAM put it), the thing
that implementors of 'mainstream' TM software can
safely implement. Also the basis for a standard API
(e.g. topic.getOccurrences() )
- a syntax desirialization model for HyTM
- a syntax desirialization model for XTM
(..both using the semantics of the SAM)
 propably also TMQL,TMCL etc...??
> Martin Bryan
> IS-Thought: Thinkers for the Information Society
> 29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK
> Phone: +44 1452 714029 Fax: +44 1452 859991
> E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Thought of the week:
> Mankind is drowning in knowledge for
> want of the lifebelt of common sense
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org