parid0463 | Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
When Steve says the RM is for someone who
wants to "achieve subject location uniqueness for subjects that are
specified by domain-specific relationship types", he's using language that's
way out in philosophical territory, not something that sounds like the
specification of "Document Description and Processing Languages" (with
emphasis on "languages"). How can you write a conformance specification to
something like that (and if you can't specify conformance, you're not
writing a standard)? Graham's  message, which he placed outside this thread,
is appropriate: (to oversimplify greatly) we need a formula for getting from
the RM to the SAM and back.
parid0463 | Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:39:19
When interpreted in accordance with their governing TM Applications, conforming topic maps yield topic map graphs in which all subjects are represented as nodes, in which no node is treated as having, or apparently has, more or less than a single subject, and in which the Subject Location Uniqueness Objective is honored, i.e., in which no two nodes represent the same subject.
Need to focus on TM Applications, which govern TMs, not switch from
one to the other.