[sc34wg3] The missing link

[Martin Bryan]

Sam et al

Congratulations on the revised draft of RM4TM, which is much cleaner than
previously and, therefore, easier to understand. However, there is one thing
that is detracting from its comprehensibility: there is no "proof of the
pudding". You have not proven that it is possible to describe either XTM or
HyTM (or any alternative syntax) using RM4TM. To do this you need to add an
annex that contains a complete Syntax Processing Model for an existing TM
syntax that can be used to prove that you can describe all of the components
of that syntax.

Let me just state a few of the TM problems I want to be able to understand
how RM4TM might be able to deal with.

1) If I create two topics whose only difference is their scopes, or the
scopes applied to, say, their sort names, how do non-mergeable assertions
get created from them in such a way that none of their identities, names or
occurrences get merged?

2) If I create an association with three or more members how many assertions
need to be created?

3) If I create an association with two or more members with the same role,
how does RM4TM distinguish between them so that 3.7.1 is not contravened?

4) If I use added themes to distinguish entries created in two source files,
how can I ensure that I can separate the assertions created in response to
the different sources?

5) If I use facets to assign a differentiating property (facet value) to
differentiate two topic occurrences how can this be represented as a SIDP?

Once I can understand how RM4TM can be mapped to the names, occurrences and
associations that I consider as the heart of topic maps then I am willing to
buy the rules specified in the new specification, but I still need to be
convinced that it is possible to fully describe all the features of the
existing syntaxes using the model.

Martin Bryan
IS-Thought: Thinkers for the Information Society
29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK
Phone: +44 1452 714029 Fax: +44 1452 859991
E-mail: martin@is-thought.co.uk

Thought of the week:
Technology can waste as much time as it saves