[sc34wg3] The interpretation of facets

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
26 Apr 2003 16:31:00 +0200

* Michel Biezunski
| Why instead of mapping to SAM don't you consider this approach? Map
| the HyTm DTD to the TMM. Interchange could then take place at that
| level instead and you might not have to change the DTD at all. 

I suppose you mean "conversion" rather than interchange, since model
instances cannot be interchanged directly but must be represented in
syntax to be interchanged. In any case, you would also have to map XTM
to the RM for this to work, and you would have to firm up the RM quite
considerably for it to have any chances of success.

SAM was designed to also accomodate HyTM, and the difficulties Martin
is experiencing stem from his disagreement with us on what the proper
interpretation of HyTM is. To use the RM to model HyTM would just make
us have the same argument about how to interpret HyTM using a
different terminology that is less optimal for the purpose. I don't
see any point in that.

| You would still be able to use the HyTime DTD as such with facets
| and all the rest and be able to interchange with a SAM-based
| application?

That would require facets to be expressed in terms of topics,
associations, and occurrences anyway, so what's the point?
| There are variant structures that are potential candidates to be
| integrated into topic maps, [...]

Such as?

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >