[sc34wg3] DM conformance

Dmitry sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:13:56 -0500

From: "Lars Marius Garshol"

> 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.

DM from my perspective defines some ontological commitments. Conformance to
DM means sharing these ontological commitments. DM introduces such concepts
as topics, occurrences, types etc. It also introduces some constraints: DM
does not allow, for example, referencing simple data in associations, only
topics are allowed. On the other hand DM says nothing about binary
relationships or inverse relationships. Conformance to DM means that we
agree to use set of categories for modeling.

When we are working on TMQL or TMCL we have to share at least these
ontological commitments.  We can introduce new commitments. For example, in
TMQL we can define a mechanism to use "binary relationships". But if we want
to stay DM-compliant we have to "explain" these extensions in terms of
associations or occurrences.