[sc34wg3] Re: RE: [sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position onthe progress ion of Topic Map standards

sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:08:01 +0200


to be precise: One part of the RM is that it specifies how
how merging rule definition specifications need to be written.

So, given the deployment of the Topic Maps paradigm to Web-
technology it might be desired to standardize an XML DTD for
defining merging rules. The RM tells you, what semantics this
DTD must have.

(In case anyone is interested: merging rules actually come done
to constraining the ranges of SIDPs, as in ("the range of the
SIDP 'SubjectIndicators' consists of disjoint sets").)


Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> schrieb am 01.04.2004,
> Kal
> > I believe that the four parts of ISO 13250 in progress at the moment
> > address all four of your points, but as you noted, there is currently no
> > way for an application to specify merging rules declaratively.
> I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "specify merging rules declaratively", but it
> sounds to me a sort of paradox. From the recent thread about merging rules, what I
> understood was that the debate was about having or not merging rules *at all* in the core
> standard, since they are procedural specifications.
> And seems to me that Jim's point is to ask for a RM which would contain only declarative
> semantics, and not procedural specification.
> Jim, correct me if I am wrong, do you mean that in your opinion there should not be
> anything like merging rules defined in the RM ? (if this is the case, I fully agree with
> you)
> Bernard
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
Jan Algermissen                <algermissen@acm.org>
Consultant & Programmer