[sc34wg3] Review of N0393

Dmitry sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:36:35 -0400

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jan Algermissen" <algermissen@acm.org>
To: <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Review of N0393

> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> <snip />
> > Now, as to why the thing is not implementable, and why it is not a
> > technology, I will just scratch a little in the surface of it. There
> > are many many more problems with the document than those I point to
> > below,
> Well, in order to advance N0393 it would be usefull if you would
> list as many problems as you see. Sure we will try fix the 'many
> more problems' once you point them out.


I can suggest to discuss quite "simple" issue: difference in XTM/SAM
association and RM/TMM assertion.

With this definition and restrictions:
[parid0667] Within a single assertion, no two castings can cast role players
in the same role.

            Note 7:  [parid0668] However, a set or group of subjects can be
a subject, and it can therefore be a role player. The Topic Maps Model
neither provides nor constrains set/group semantics; such semantics are
defined entirely by TM Applications.

it is quite difficult to represent XTM/SAM association as assertion(s). My
suggestion: RM/TMM should define STANDARD way to represent set of topics
with kind of enumeration constract. In this case RM/TMM  assertion will
provide a "good basis" for representing
XTM/SAM associations.

Alternative is to allow several players of the same role but, personally, I
like more first idea.

I am just wondering what was behind [parid0667] and [parid0668].