[sc34wg3] DM conformance
Lars Marius Garshol
21 Nov 2003 12:52:11 +0100
* 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.
* Michel Biezunski
| When you mean conformance XTM, TMQL and TMCL as opposed to
| conformance to the data model? do you mean conformance to the
In the case of XTM, yes, though that means both rejecting invalid XTM
files and interpreting XTM correctly.
The same applies to TMCL: processors must be able to reject invalid
TMCL schemas, and also implement the is-valid(TM, schema) function so
that it returns true when it should and false when it should.
And so on for TMQL.
| 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
| 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?
Yes, it does. You're pretty much saying what I think.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >