[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position onthe
progress ion of Topic Map standards
Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:12:35 +0200
Bernard Vatant wrote:
> 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
Hmm...to me the process of creating the RM is not at all a process of *deciding* what
to put in there and what not. To me, it is about identifying the essence of topic maps
and then to throw out everything of the RM that is not needed for defining this
Maybe that is part of the confusion about the RM,...?
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org