Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] formal syntax (was: Tuesday Conference)

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Thomas Bandholtz
| 
| I would prefer to have an XML Schema, sorting Typology from Topics,
| using inheritance, modular XML namespaces, etc, etc.

Why?

| OK, then let's use XTM for PSI, or drop XTM completely (no joke)
| We might even use RDF for PSI. But - *please!!!* not a third thing.

I agree. A third syntax would be a terrible idea. As far as I know
that idea has been dropped, however. That leaves us with XTM and RDF.

| If I can find the time, I would even think about re-writing XTM
| using XML Schema, so that any valid XTM document would remain valid.

That would be welcome. Note that this would only be documentation of
the existing syntax, however, and have no use beyond that. DTDs and
XML Schemas are equally insufficient for topic map validation. What
you really want is something like OSL (Ontopia Schema Language).
 
| I also had discussions with Steven Newcomb and Michel Biezunski
| today about adding an event-type with a temporal extent attribute
| and a location-type with a gml:boundingBox. May this points to the
| direction of an XTM 1.1 ....

It might. This was raised at the ISO meeting[1], and will be settled
one way or another. I don't think model/syntax changes are necessary
for this, but I might be wrong.

[1] <URL: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0321.htm#infinite_subject_spaces >

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >