[sc34wg3] Review of N0393

Patrick Durusau sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Sun, 27 Apr 2003 07:55:52 -0400


Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Patrick Durusau
>| Are you using "interoperability" in the sense of your prior post
>| (http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001460.html)?
>Yes, though that posting contains very little information on what I
>think "interoperability" means. This thread is a much better place to
>look for information:
><URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-April/001615.html >
I will re-read as a post on "interoperability." I read it initially as 
treatment of the conformance issue but the two are linked as you point out.

>* Lars Marius Garshol
>| I think for a conceptual model that would make sense, but the SAM is
>| a data model designed to support interoperability (XTM/HyTM/CXTM)
>| and the definition of query and constraint languages.
>* Patrick Durusau
>| In the same sense that XSLT is "interoperable" with XML? Except that
>| XML does not have a "data model," well, according to some people and
>| I don't want to start that debate here, and so to be interoperable,
>| one simply follows the syntax. So "interoperability" here means a
>| congruence of syntax?
>It's more complicated than that. Obviously, if you don't conform to
>the syntax specification when interchanging your topic map you won't
>get interoperability, but interoperability is also about having the
>software that reads the syntax act the same way.
>To me, interoperability means to be able to process the same topic map
>document (and possibly schema/query) with the same topic map
>implementation and get the same results.

Quite puzzled by your explanation of interoperability. Not sure how you 
would ever get from the "same topic map document (and possibly 
schema/query) with the same topic map implementation" to an inconsistent 
result? Not trying to be difficult but if you did, wouldn't that be a 
programming error in the application? Assuming identical starting 
conditions I really don't see how you would get different results. A 
parser that starts with identical starting conditions and rules, 
assuming there is not some random function in the code, should produce 
the same result, shouldn't it?

A less technical question would be is that same result 
"interoperability?" Sounds more like consistency (conformance?) or some 
similar term.


Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps