[sc34wg3] N0391-0394: New SAM/XTM documents

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Robert Barta
> |
> | OK, both SAM and TMM are for me 'deserialisation techniques'. This
> | means that if I have an instance X in XTM (or some other
> | serialization/syntax) that both """""models""""" (mind the quotes :-)
> | define ANOTHER syntax, this time an abstract syntax. The structure is
> | defined via a set of constraints.  These, for instance, define that a
> | topic might have a number of characteristics together with a scope.


Well, just for the record....I seriously wonder what part of the TMM 
is the basis for your understanding. Can you provide a quote?

Jan


> Bingo. You hit the nail precisely on the head.
> 
> | Only if I define operations on this structure, then I introduce
> | formal semantics. Both models do this to a certain extent as they
> | define what a "fully merged map" should look like.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> | But this is only for implementing a 'deserialisation'. Did you see
> | anything about querying or constraining? To do that, the
> | """""model""""" would have to define another operation:
> |
> |    "fully merged map" * constraint -> {yes, no, maybe}
> |
> | or
> |
> |    "fully merged map" * query      -> "query result"
> |
> | Neither of the deserialisation standards have this and this was
> | obviously not their goal.
> 
> Again absolutely correct. The whole idea was that this would go into
> separate specifications.
> 
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org