[sc34wg3] Some general comments on the RM (branching from the thread Re: [s c34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO 13250)
Lars Marius Garshol
15 Apr 2003 23:53:06 +0200
* James David Mason
| It's interesting to see you agree that the RM is syntactic at the
| same time that I'm getting other people wondering how it can
| possibly be syntactic.
I think that reflects different views of what a syntax is. For some
people that means "something serialized as a stream of bytes", whereas
others take a wider view. See the definitions of several query and
constraint languages, and you'll see the term "abstract syntax" used
for something that has a defined structure but no byte stream
Not that it really matters. It's just arguing over labels. I think we
all agree that the RM defines a structure. What you are saying is that
it doesn't say enough about how to interpret that structure. I'm not
sure I buy that criticism.
| I agree that the SAM has much more concrete semantics because it
| develops things like names and associations. But the RM has to
| establish some foundation for your ability to create those.
| Is a name a type of assertion? I think so.
I do, too. I don't think there's any disagreement there.
| Is an association also an assertion? Certainly.
| Figure 1 in the current RM started out, I believe, as a detailed
| dissection of an association.
What's funny is that at the TM User's Group meeting in Norway one of
the vendors (no, not Ontopia) used it to illustrate an association.
| The current figure simply removes the concrete subjects (which were
| orignially things like "Lena Horne" and "Stormy Weather" and later
| became someone with a Harvard M.D.) and leaves you with bones and
| no skin. It's OK for the SAM to start putting skin on the bones,
| but the RM is so abstract now that the wind will blow those dry
| bones away.
I'm afraid I don't know what that means.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >