Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:32:21 +1000
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:08:12AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> | I think it is quite simple:
> | 1) you create some implementation of what you think is a TM
> | implementation, in that you create your databases, internals,
> | whatever
> | 2) to "prove" that your application is "SAM conformant" you simply
> | define a mapping of concepts of SAM (and operations if we had
> | those) onto your API (or your API concepts).
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jan already accepted this, and
> what he is asking is whether step 2) has any value here. Personally, I
> don't think it does, and I think the conformance requirements of the
> syntaxes, APIs, and query/constraint languages will be all we will
I agree(d already earlier) that this is not a strong form of
"conformance" and that TM?L will be a much stronger vehicle to do
> | True, but it will be more difficult to fool the outside if I ask
> | your application to round-trip an XTM document.
> Exactly. So why have your step 2) above?
I always saw this more as a 'confidence-building measure', so that
products which claim to be 'very similar to Topic Maps' have a harder
time to ride on that. Saw another yesterday.
I am not sure whether it is market-tactically right or wrong to
release a 'toothless tiger'. I guess, it is ok, if it is explicitely
NB: POSIX also was defined with a clause running like "....and if an
implementation lists all deviations from POSIX explicitely, then it is
also POSIX conform....". Ah, yes, Windows was then POSIX conform...
[ Could be an urban legend, though ]