[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position o nthe
progress ion of Topic Map standards
Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:53:28 +0200
Robert Barta wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 12:43:25PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> > Jan Algermissen wrote:
> > Consider this:
> > Organization A has developed a topic map with specialed merging rules
> > (e.g. merging based on latitude and longitute properties) and likes to
> > hand this map to another organization (or maybe even to another department).
> > Given your scenario, A needs to send the map, the Astma rules and the
> > rule engine because without these three things the original intention
> > cannot be communicated.
> > Besides the open-source-ness of the engine in this situation this is
> > what you actually call vendor lock-in.
> Absolutely correct. This is the reason why I think that TMCL should
> allow me to specify these things. It should be an 'ontology definition
Right! And the RM provides the foundations to define TMCL. It answers the
question what a TMCL-defined ontology must contain. In the sense you use
ontology here it has the same meaning as 'Application' in the RM
( http://www.isotopicmaps.org/TMRM/TMRM-latest-clean.html#parid3255 )
And the TMDM modulo the infoset part is the standard ontology for
Topic Maps (what is a name, what is an ocurrence, what is the nature
of the property 'SubjectIndicators' etc.)
I have allways understood the term SAM to mean Standard Application Model
in the RM sense of 'Applicaton' which equals 'ontology', anyway.
not just a template thing "all topics of type X must look
> like this".
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org