Hi,
[Peter Jones]
[Hard hats on please -- unfounded polemic to follow... ;-]
I also have concerns that under these circumstances the mechanism for scoping as defined in ISO 13250 is both too strong and too insignificant.
Too strong because scopes are defined as equivalent for two separate entities if the set of topic names given in the scope attribute's value is exactly the same.
Too insignificant because, as I understand 13250, the value of the scope attribute is just a set of names.
The type attribute is supposed to cure some of this but I don't think it does in a situation of the complexity I have outlined earlier (concerning the dynamic generation of a TM for dynamically aggregated resources over the WWWeb).
Truth is there seem to be two separate things going on in 13250. One that says, "let's have a lot of the power of Concept Maps" and another that says, "let's just treat these docs as indexing docs and create a mechanism that suits merging indexes". (Chimaera or a pig with wings?).
As we create XTM I am inclined to think that we need to merge more of the functionality of Knowledge Interchange Format with the 'aggregation over resources' capabilities. Scopes become defined more in terms of logical equivalence (with whatever truth model suits our needs best) of contexts as seen in Concept Maps. Its weak enough to allow more interesting and intelligent merger strategies and strong enough to keep scoping useful.
The index view of a 13250 doc seems to be too much of a throwback to traditional libraries to me at this time.
[You can take the hard hats off now.]
I am just voicing
intuitions at this stage and I realise that I need to play with topic maps more
to provide more concrete data for decisions to be made, but I just thought it
might be another useful minnow to introduce into the pond.
[Peter Jones]
cheers
Peter
To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com