[sc34wg3] Contribution to GTM (level 0)

[Reidar Bratsberg]

Hi Rani!

On 24. feb.. 2009, at 09:37, Rani Pinchuk wrote:
> Reidar Bratsberg wrote:
>> 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.

A typical use case for what I mean, could be a discussion between
developers.  Probably about some internal issues or for explaining
aspects of the Topic Maps model for some example.  (Of course
this could be done using other notations, as well)

I can see that this is not the typical use of GTM level 0.
My  suggestion is just to keep the original notation as an option.

Do you feel the choice between several notations would be confusing?

> Usually we use the level 0 drawing just in order to communicate  
> simple excerpts of
> topic maps.

I agree that your proposal is better suited for this, and for most work
on Topic Maps issues with clients.

Kind regards,
Reidar

-- 
Reidar Bratsberg, Ravn Webveveriet AS
reidar at ravn.no,  http://www.ravn.no