[sc34wg3] CXTM Issue: Values

Lars Heuer heuer at semagia.com
Wed Apr 23 08:51:55 EDT 2008

Hi Lars,

>> From my understanding of the current draft; this may lead into
>> different canonical representations of the same topic map.

> Not quite. It means the canonical representation of the value is the  
> original string value that the engine was given, whether that was in  
> CTM or XTM or ...

Oh, that's strange.
If my Topic Maps engine reads XTM / CTM / whatever and the source
contains "0"^^xsd:boolean for an occurrence value and the engine
returns "false" for the value of that occurrence if the user requests
that value, this would be wrong according to the given Topic Maps
standards, since the engine does not keep the "original" (string)

> Some things we could do:

>    (1) Leave the current specs as they are, and just make sure to not
>        construct tests which "invite" trouble by using non-canonical
>        input values.

>    (2) Leave the current specs as they are, and make the test system
>        smarter, so that we can specify alternative canonicalizations
>        of the same input.

>    (3) Put canonicalization of values into CXTM. If we do this, it has
>        to be consistent with TMQL.

Well, the CXTM tests are not part of the standard, right? My feeling
is, that the spec. should be explicit and self-contained; so (3) seems
to be the cleanest solution here.

Best regards,

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list