[sc34wg3] Analysis of TMRM Use Cases

Jan Algermissen sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:11:42 +0200

Kal Ahmed wrote:

> Your entire explanation presupposes that Topic Maps == RM. I don't buy
> that - I never, even with a close reading of  ISO 13250 or XTM 1.0 saw
> *anything* remotely like the RM in it. So as far as I am concerned RM !=
> Topic Maps.

ISO 13250 and XTM 1.0 define syntaxes and since Topic Maps appearently go
beyond being a set of syntaxes (or an architectural form) an abstract
information struture had to be developed. The proposed TMDM is *one* 
interpretation of these syntaxes and the RM provides a different one.

What is the reason that makes you think that the abstract data structure
proposed by the TMDM is in fact Topic Maps and that the abstract structure
of the RM is not?

I claim that there is equally well nothing in ISO 13250 and XTM 1.0 that
justifies to say that Topic Maps == TMDM as there is to say that
Topic Maps == RM.

IMHO, this is the issue that underlies the whole discussion and I would
really like to see some reasoning that justifies that the proposed TMDM
is the one and only correct abstract information structure that can be
derived from ISO 13250 and XTM 1.0.

IMHO it is not even possible to ground such an abstract structure on
a syntax so how was the TMDM derived then?



Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org