[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S.
N.B.positiononthe progress ion of Topic Map standards
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:45:35 +0100
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 20:18, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Kal Ahmed wrote:
> > You process the topic map as defined by the standard. Thats all there is
> > to it.
> Ah, so. And if you have additional merging rules the standard's position is
> 'do what you like!'. Does that sound like a sound basis for "successful
> information interchange"?
I haven't had a problem with it so far.
> What is the reason for the apparent objection to improving this situation
> anyhow? - I still don't get it (especially as I see only benefit for everyone).
Why are you so confrontational about this ? I have stated in every
message of this thread that I am *not* against the goals of the RM. I am
just very concerned that this additional functionality is being proposed
for ISO 13250 - I don't think it belongs there, I think it belongs in a
I thought I had made my position clear enough.