[sc34wg3] Comments on latest TMRM draft
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:52:12 -0400
Jan Algermissen wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>> To say that "values are unconstrained" seems like hand-waving. At the
>> very least some minimal conditions have to be spelled out.
> FWIW, I think the TMRM could only benefit from explicitly saying that
> values are typed. (They are anyhow, because if they do not have a
> type, no one can do anything with them. So why not say it? You cannot
> even compare two values if they have no type.)
We did say it. Section 5.2 Types.
> The value types (aka data types) are of course unconstrained. They
> can be simple or complex. For the TMRM value types (and values) are
> opaque of course. (Is that what is meant with 'unconstrained')?
Unconstrained means the TMRM doesn't know what data types you have
defined in your Subject Map Disclosure. How could we?
> Aside: does the TMRM assume that values can be compared?
You define whatever you want to do. See the viewing function under 2.1
Maps. We don't assume they can be compared, we assume people can say if
they want to compare them and then define how.
Hope you are having a great day!
> Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer
> Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT'
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!