[sc34wg3] TMDM / XTM 2.0 comments
Lars Marius Garshol
larsga at ontopia.net
Fri Apr 21 10:58:51 EDT 2006
* Lars Heuer
> I don't want to beat a dead horse, but IMO the <itemIdentity> element
> on every topic map construct blows the XTM unnecessarily up.
It does blow it up. The question is whether this is unnecessary. :-)
Graham and I really agonized over this question as we really did not
like the blow-up (which is real). The trouble is that if you remove
this then only topics will have identity, and the result is that
there are some things you will no longer be able to do.
An example probably helps here. Let's say you want to make an desktop
topic map editor that connects to a TM server and gets the fragment
for a topic from there (in XTM). The user edits the topic, and once
done the editor sends the updated fragment back to the server (in XTM).
Now, if we have item identifiers on all constructs the server can
assign an identity to each piece it sends, and transmit this in
standard XTM. The editor can mess around with these as it pleases,
and then send standard XTM back, and the server will now be able to
tell what the changes are since every piece has an identifier.
All the other scenarios are really variations on this theme if I
> Is it true, that they are only kept because nobody wants to (or can)
> touch the TMDM again?
No. This was before we sent out the TMDM FDIS, so the train hadn't
left the station then. It probably has now, though.
> Keeping item identifiers (and variants) seems to ignore the whole
> potential of the "Atlanta decision" (<http://www.jtc1sc34.org/
> repository/0676.htm>), where the committe has decided to break
> backwards compatibility (for XTM).
I agree that decision did open a window of opportunity. (Of course,
the window was really too small to be very useful, but that's all
water under the bridge by now.)
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian http://www.ontopia.net
+47 98 21 55 50 http://www.garshol.priv.no
More information about the sc34wg3