[sc34wg3] SAM issue: sam-conformance

Sam Hunting sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:46:57 -0400 (EDT)

On 23 Apr 2003, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

<slash type="of-interestign-and-valuable-commentary">
> Note, I say SAM throughout to keep the discussion simple. I know
> there's some dissent about whether there should be separate SAM and RM
> specifications, but let's ignore that while discussing this. The
> conformance issue would play out in exactly the same way whether we
> were talking about RM, SAM, or RM+SAM.

For clarity: when the word "specification" is used, does that mean that
there is an implicit proposal to publish either the SAM, the RM, or the
SAM+RM as a Technical Specification? (One of the issues with N0396 is that
it uses "standard" and "specification" interchangeably.)

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.
Co-editor:  ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps 
  Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org
  XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.