[sc34wg3] CXTM Draft Requirements available for review
23 Jul 2003 19:58:13 +0100
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 12:07, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Kal Ahmed
> | As a point of order, is the version now on the website considered to
> | be fixed? In other words can I make some of the editorial changes
> | that I have been advised of or does that now have to wait for the
> | end of the review period for this document ?
> No, if you want to make changes that will be fine. Since we'll be
> going through the document at the Montréal meeting (see Steve's
> posting) I think it would be best if you made the changes before that
OK. I'll do my best to make the changes I want to make done in good time
for the meeting so that everyone has the chance to read it beforehand.
However, I do recognised that the national bodies may have already
gathered their comments on the existing draft.
> | [history]
> | It might be edited ever so slightly :)
> Oh. :)
> | What I thought was important was to capture references to the ISO
> | documents which preceeded this one.
> Well, you should have those now, at least. :)
Oh yes. In gory detail :)
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> | Re "suite of conformance tests", I guess it is appropriate to mention
> | OASIS here and say that ISO does not intend to do this. I realize you
> | say this later, but isn't this a better place to do it?
> * Kal Ahmed
> | Its probably enough to say what CXTM is intended to do. And not to
> | cover what it is not intended to do (i.e. specify conformance test
> | suites) here. In other words I think that defining what
> | canonicalization is and the purpose of CXTM should replace that
> | second paragraph entirely.
> I buy that.
> | [3.2.2]
> | The intention was that there should be some canonical ID for every
> | object in the topic map. Perhaps this is actually not needed at all
> | as long as there is a canonical sort order.
> It is needed, because you need a canonical form for the <topicRef/>
> elements, so this is a must-have. I suppose rewording the section
> could make that clearer.
Of course (slaps forehead) I *knew* there was a reason :)
I'll do my best to translate that section into English.
> | I do mean information item types. I believe that in terms of canonical
> | output there does need to be such an ordering (all Topic information
> | items are written before any Association information items). But as you
> | point out, that can be accounted for by defining the canonical form of
> | the TopicMap information item. So this requirement should probably be
> | changed to that.
> | If you spend all your time in south-east Asia thinking about CXTM I
> | shan't forgive you :)
> I consider myself forgiven, then, not having given CXTM or even TMs so
> much as a passing thought. :)
I am glad to hear it!
Kal Ahmed, Techquila
Standards-based Information Management
p: +44 7968 529531