[sc34wg3] Contribution to GTM (level 0)
rani.pinchuk at spaceapplications.com
Tue Feb 24 03:37:59 EST 2009
Reidar Bratsberg wrote:
> On 22. feb.. 2009, at 21:01, Rani Pinchuk wrote:
>> Hendrik Thomas presented in the TMRA'2008 his nice paper about
>> GTMalpha (see http://www.tmra.de/2008/talks/pdf/137-152.pdf). I
>> think that this suggestion can be an excellent basis for the
>> standard. However, I would like to suggest some changes in it. The
>> main change is described in the attached text.
> As I understand your suggestion, you propose to replace the notation
> from the TMRA08-paper?
> Maybe this form could be an optional "short-hand" -- to be used for
> clarity when necessary, and the original form could be used to
> emphasize the actual constructs in the topic map?
What do you mean by emphasizing the actual constructs in the topic map?
> I agree with your rationale, both in making the semantic meaning (that
> is currently under discussion) clearer, and to reduce the graphical
> noise from many many lines, elipses, boxes etc. Still, in many use
> cases, it would be handy to make it very clear what is a topic and
> what is not.
Could you provide an example?
And beside, one can simply draw a topic which types associations for
example as a topic (ellipse). I suggest only that this ellipse is not
connected to the association itself with lines.
> Another point: In the original paper, you can have boxes inside
> topics that allow you to refer to them by number, to split up the
> figure. I guess this should also be possible in your proposed form.
> (I suggested to Hendrik Thomas in Leipzig an alternative way of
> drawing this, where you just divide the elipse with a vertical line
> and put the reference in one part -- to reduce clutter. I would prefer
> a "graphically small" way of doing this.). In any case, a way to put
> short references to other topics would be great to make references to
> other parts of a topic map.
I am not against this. However, I have yet to meet this need. Usually we
use the level 0 drawing just in order to communicate simple excerpts of
> Also, I wonder if there's a typo in figure 6 in the attachment:
> Shouldn't "abbreviation" be in brackets: "(abbreviation)", since it's
> a scoping topic?
Yes. Indeed this is a mistake of me.
Space Applications Services
Tel.: + 32 2 721 54 84
Fax.: + 32 2 721 54 44
More information about the sc34wg3