xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Robert Barta
| 
| Could be a pretty bogus argument, because I always wondered:
| 
| Conjecture [A]: Is it possible to construct an XTM file which
|                 validates against the XTM DTD and which 'violates'
|                 TMDM?

The DTD accepts documents rejected by the RELAX-NG schema, so the
RELAX-NG schema is really what defines the syntax.

However, even if the file is valid according to the schema, violating
TMDM isn't that difficult, although it may not be obvious how to do
it.  Here's one example:

  <!-- we assume the associations are not equal -->
  <association id="a1">...</association>
  <association id="a2">...</association>

  <topic id="t">
    <subjectIdentity>
      <subjectIdentifierRef xlink:href="#a1"/>
      <subjectIdentifierRef xlink:href="#a2"/>
    </subjectIdentity>
  </topic>

Done.
 
| [ Ah, I found accidentally a typo!! ]

What's the typo?
 
| So far, so good. And TMDM
| 
|    http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#sect-assoc-role
| 
| says:
| 
|    [player]: A topic item. The topic that plays this role in the association.
| 
| And if the XTM serialization rules
| 
|    http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/#sect-proc-topicRef
| 
| say
| 
|    ..... If no such topic item exists, a topic item is created, and l
|    added to its [item identifiers] property.
| 
| then I wonder whether this all works.

What's the problem?

| If conjecture [A] is true, my argument, then, would be "if XTM (+
| DTD/Relax/Schema) cannot guarantee that my content which I put in
| with this nifty-hefty-trendy XML development thingy is TMDM-sane,
| how does XTM editing make sense at all?"

It's common for the schema to not fully define an XML markup language,
because usually there are structural rules that the schema just cannot
restrict. This has been the case ever since the days of SGML, and is
one of the main reasons why Schematron was invented.

I don't see this as being an argument against editing XTM directly,
though. The argument is simply that it's really awkward.
 
| Hope I am wrong with my conjecture [A]. ;-)

You're not.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >