[xtm-wg] Q: F.6.4 Role player duplicate suppression

[Robert Barta <rho@bigpond.net.au>]

Hi,

While I find plausible the simplification in 'F.6.4 Role player
duplicate suppression', what about:

<association id="a34">
   <member>
      <roleSpec xlink:href="#brother" />
      <topicRef xlink:href="#gdm" />
   </member>
   <member>
      <roleSpec xlink:href="#brother" />
      <topicRef xlink:href="#gdm" />
      <topicRef xlink:href="#ctb" />
   </member>
   <member>
      <roleSpec xlink:href="#brother" />
      <topicRef xlink:href="#ctb" />
   </member>
</association>

Should it collapse into

<association id="a34">
   <member>
      <roleSpec xlink:href="#brother" />
      <topicRef xlink:href="#gdm" />
      <topicRef xlink:href="#ctb" />
   </member>
</association>

?  Or should the clause F.6.4.3 read

  3. M1 and M2 reference exactly the same *set* of topics
     as role playing topics.

? Then, in this example, NO simplification can happen.

Actually, I have an uneasy feeling of just deleting a whole
member, even though it might look redundant in terms of
the information encoded. IMHO, there _is_ a difference between 
an association with 2 and one with 3 members. But then probably
one should not use the same ID for both....

\rho

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/