[sc34wg3] N0391-0394: New SAM/XTM documents
Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:33:55 +0200
Robert Barta wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> > 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?
> This is what I read from it, even though it might not be explicitely
> in there. If I read a lot of (simply picking one at random):
> 3.2.1 Property names
> Every property has a name; the name is different from that
> assigned to all other properties, assertion types, and roles.
> then this is syntax.
I still have a hard time to expand my understanding of syntax to include
what you (and Jim Mason) have been talking about. Does it mean that
any structure (including abstract ones) is syntax?
> I have symbols 'name' and 'property' and they
> have to be arranged in a particular way. Additional constraints are
> that this 'name' symbol must not appear in other places of the
> /me browsing through TMM again...
> The whole document is full of these constraints which ensure that the
> structure has exactly the form you want.
Hmm, what matters is that (regardless of the actual structure) a system
can provide a 'view' on the topic map that is equivalent to the one described
in the TMM. But this is syntax too, right? (The fact that TMM describes an
abstraction does not matter, yes?)
Essentially a topic map (not only in TMM) consists of proxies for subjects
and connections between them, so I guess a topic map is allways syntax, right?
To be sure I get it: Is any graph neccessarily syntax then?
> The only 'operational part' I see is section 9 'Fully Merged Topic
> Maps'. Please correct me if I am wrong!
Well, I am trying to learn and I hope I eventually understand you
(and also Jim) on the syntax issue.
Now the question is for me, what is missing in TMM?
Right now, the TMM defines the semantics of all the components of
a real-world relationship (the definition of the assertion structure).
What else should it define regarding semantics?
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org