[sc34wg3] A plea for CTM and a request for more input on requirements
Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:16:52 +0100
(h) -- I think this should be interpreted as meaning that it should be
possible to format CTM (with whitespace and line-separator characters)
to make it easy to read. Its always possible to write hard-to-read
code...even in Python ;-)
(q) -- I don't think this should be a requirement for CTM - I think it
would more be a requirements that any graphical notation should cover
TMDM. Then CTM "integration" with a graphical notation would be a
(v) -- XTM -> TMDM -> CTM and back is not necessarily a lossless
transformation. For example XTM -> TMDM loses information about the
grouping of topic references under association roles and the nesting of
Two more requirements that I think you should consider:
1) CTM must support the creation of modular topic maps with minimal
"import" mechanism. Something like LTM's INCLUDE directive.
2) CTM must support the inclusion of author comments within a CTM file,
and support the "commenting-out" of CTM constructs.
Gabriel Hopmans (Morpheus) wrote:
> Hello All,
> I just want to start a new thread/discussion item about CTM but now
> with a more gentle introduction. I think we now had for the moment
> enough discussion about a need for CTM . I will use several points
> made to prepare work (discussion items, requirements, issues,
> evaluations) for the ISO meeting in Montreal so that you can make
> decisions. Hopefully others in Montreal will see/understand and some
> others will underline the need so that we will agree upon the need for
> First of all CTM is *not* going be a syntax for the 'general
> end-users'. And then I define the general end-users as persons without
> technical skills or Topic Maps experience etc.. just a general user.
> CTM is mainly intended to be used by 'technies' to make their life
> easier. (and thus agreeing what Jim Mason wrote earlier and inline
> with the thread discussion that Lars Marius started yesterday with the
> subject CTM: the arguments for standardisation).
> As last point XTM stays the basis for interchange
> Now a new request:
> - can you provide us with more requirements for CTM?
> (BTW, thanks for those who provided input)
> - please if you have experience with it give feedback on the use of
> LTM, AsTMa=?
> (This to find the strengths of the languages and get them in the new
> CTM. And to eliminate the weaknesses.)
> The latest version of the requirements collected so far are available at:
> Gabriel Hopmans
> Morpheus Software