[sc34wg3] Conformance

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
28 Apr 2003 12:11:04 +0200

* Robert Barta
| 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
| that.

Good. Noted.
* Lars Marius Garshol
| Exactly. So why have your step 2) above?
* Robert Barta
| 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 think Canonical XTM + test suite will be much more powerful means of
testing this. If they can't import XTM and output correct CXTM they
are not conformant.

The documentation of API-to-SAM-correspondence they could do anyway,
and the existence of the SAM would allow anyone to compare the two.
Having a conformance clause would make no difference here, I think.
| 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
| stated.

Oh, I think the tiger will be more than toothed. It will be
accompanied by a division of mechanised infantry. Conforming to the
test suite will be hard enough for OKS/TM4J/Perl::XTM/eKMS. Anyone
trying to fake it won't stand a chance.

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