[sc34wg3] DM conformance

Michel Biezunski sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
19 Nov 2003 08:12:14 -0500

On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 07:03, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> And does it really conform to the data model, anyway? I'd say that it
> *uses* the data model, and as far as I can see the same goes for every
> other specifications I can think of, except possibly an API spec.
> I'm not sure we really *care* about DM conformance, either. If
> standards are about interoperability, then surely conformance is what
> enables interoperability, and it should be tailored to that end. Now,
> how does the DM actually affect interoperability? I don't think it
> does; it's just a tool used to define what XTM, TMQL, and TMCL
> actually mean. People must conform to XTM, TMQL, or TMCL, but I don't
> see how they can conform to the DM.

When you mean conformance XTM, TMQL and TMCL as opposed to conformance
to the data model? do you mean conformance to the syntax? 

This discussion is very interesting, and it's at the core of the
credibility of the standard and its future to figure out what is
the precise level of conformance that we need. 

My understanding is that there are two levels here: the model and
its interpretation(s). What the data model is doing is making explicit
the interpretation of what's involved in the various syntaxes. What
we are trying to do, if I understand it, is to constrain the
interpretations in such a way that conformance means actually something
so that we'll have TM application interoperability and TM software
interoperability, which by the way are two different things. At the same
time we also want to allow more to be part of that interchange. 

Does this echo your question?

Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn NY 11209
Email: mb@coolheads.com
Web  : http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901