[sc34wg3] XTM 1.1 issues

Lars Heuer sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:32:18 +0100

Hi Lars,

Only some short comments... :)
Due the lack of time I won't comment on everything now.

> --- <baseName>

>   2) <topicName>
>        <instanceOf>... <scope>...
>        <value>...</value>
>        <variant>...

> The editors prefer 2).


> --- Reification

>   1) -reifier- attribute on anything that can be reified
>      cut ID from everything, except <topic>

>      bad: have to add everywhere, not consistent with general XTM 1.0
>           syntax design

I'd prefer this and loosing the [item identifiers] from everything
(except from topics).

> --- The -id- attributes

>   2) Lose from everything except topic

We should go with this. :)

Item identifiers do not add value to the other items.
In fact item identifiers do no really add a value to topics, but it
may be difficult to loose item identifiers in the TMDM for topics.

> --- <mergeMap>

> Another question is whether the <mergeMap> element really belongs in
> an interchange syntax. The capability for merging topic maps is

For loosing the <mergeMap> element.
This is nothing that should be into an interchange syntax.

> --- <topicMap> content model

> Should we require <association>s to follow after the <topic>s? It
> seems tidier, however, it is more restrictive on software generating
> XTM (have to do all topics before you can do your first association).
> On consideration we reject this proposal.

I don't think that XTM should enforce <association>s behind <topic>s.
If an author wants assocs behind topics she can do it and ask her TM
processor to put them behind the topics (if the TM proc. supports


Sorry for not commenting on the topics, maybe I come back later on
that (if it's not too late). :)

Best regards,