[sc34wg3] Merging/Viewing subject proxies

Patrick Durusau sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:07:40 -0400


Hunting, Sam (LNG-EWR) wrote:

>Not that everyone doesn't already have enough to do:
>But a set of test cases wherein it would be seen to be done would be proof,
>because then performance metrics and scalability could be assessed.
Note that Versavant is NOT an implementation of the TMRM. (full stop)

Versavant IS, however, an implementation that uses disclosures that 
conform to the TMRM.

There is a huge difference.

There can be NO generalized implemenation of the TMRM. Why? Because 
disclosures and the requirements of disclosures are unbounded.

What can be implemented are applications that support TMRM conformant 
disclosures that meet the requirements of their users.

There is no requirement that every application support every disclosure. 
Some may only support one, such as in embedded applications that are 
running in the background of large news feeds for example. It may scale 
and perform but it is so customized as to not really be useful outside 
of that context. If I were the client, why the hell would I care if it 
supported other disclosures or not, so long at it was meeting my 

Once you have such an application, then you can test "performance 
metrics and scalability." You could even compare applications that 
implement the same disclosures and compare them. Or even customize your 
application to a particular disclosure or even set of disclosures.

But in any case you have to decide first what range of things you want 
to support in disclosures would be and plan your application 
accordingly. I think Newcomb has tried to be fairly general with 
Versavant but I also think he will admit that it will not support any 
and every disclosure that can be imagined.

Does that help?

Hope you are having a great day!


>-----Original Message-----
>From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org [mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]
>On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:04 PM
>To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Merging/Viewing subject proxies
>Does seeing it done count at proof of doable?
>If so, see www.versavant.com.
>Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>>hhh = { < name = "rabbit, coney" >, < webresource =  
>>>"www.rabbitnetwork.net, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit" >, <  
>>>classification = "Oryctotagus cuniculus" > }
>>>Of course I am presuming that the disclosure for "name" allows the  
>>>creation of a list of names and provides that if any of the "names"  
>>>in the list match, further viewing with other subject proxies that  
>>>have either "rabbit" or "coney" for the name property will occur.
>>Having spend about a year on implementing what happens when proxies  
>>merge and how the merged values demand further merges etc. and having  
>>especially tried to trim the algorithm for this stuff down to O(logN)  
>>I must say that the datatype magic you describe (here converting  
>>scalar to set as needed) is unlikely to be doable. The consequence  
>>IMHO is that most value types should come as sets in the first place  
>>(e.g. 'names' as opposed to 'name' in the example.
>>All this becomes really, really nasty when it comes to proxies being  
>>(parts of) values...
>>This is not to say that the RM is not brilliant....I just think there  
>>is serious stuff in there that would need to be made explicit and  
>>proven as doable. (There might well be problems lurking in there that  
>>are not computable at all in finite time, dunno)
>>Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer                         
>>Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT'   
>>sc34wg3 mailing list

Patrick Durusau
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!