[sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:51:19 +0100
Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Sounds good to me. If the editors would consider the request made, done
> and done.
Indeed, it might be remembered that the reason that IDs where required
in XTM was that absent an ID a <topic> element is almost impossible
to reliably obtain otherwise, i.e., without a uniquely-identifying
ID the element is just one in a big soup, and XPath or other forms of
XML-based querying software would be insufficient. At least at the XML
syntax level, the ID namespace is necessary for element addressing. A
<topic> element absent an ID cannot be addressed except via its content,
and in a Topic Map process this then relies upon tools (such as a query
language) that we don't yet have available -- and to my understanding
that Topic Map query language will not operate at the syntax level but
at the Topic Map level, likely needing the IDs at the syntax level to
I realize that these are somewhat different requirements than what
might be considered for a "Compact Syntax" but should still be taken
> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>>* M. Altheim
>>| I certainly agree with the notion of "if there's a PSI, use it" but
>>| I would not want to be prohibited from using IDs, which become very
>>| important, perhaps in a number of cases absolutely necessary, during
>>| Topic Map processing.
>>I agree. The intent of the original requirement was, as Lars wrote, to
>>encourage the use of PSIs over IDs. Clearly, IDs must still be
>>supported. In fact, in order to make the really clear we might want
>>to add it as another requirement.
Murray Altheim http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic and Services Development
The Open University Library
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
believe that everything is for
you until you discover
that you are for it
"The Robin and the Worm" by Don Marquis.