[xtm-wg] Best forum for ideas like these?

["Jim Farrugia" <jim@spatial.maine.edu>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service!  Click here for your free trial of @Backup.  
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online.  Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/4/_/337252/_/967730920/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Hi,

There seem to be several ideas in circulation on this
list that aren't being actively followed up on, perhaps 
because they aren't the current focus of xtm-wg.

I'd like to pursue some of these ideas, but I am not
sure this list is the appropriate forum. Maybe the
topicmapmail list is a better place to discuss these
issues?

I have collected a sample of them below, and I think
they all seem to fall under, loosely speaking, the topic
of "discussion of fundamental issues in the ISO 13250 model
and possible changes to this standard."  Some of these
considerations seem to be related to the "parallel
tracks; one model, two perspectives" discussions, but
they would probably take those discussions far afield from
XTM per se.  It seems that the xtm-wg is plenty busy 
right now working on XTM.  

I'd appreciate your opinions on where the kinds of ideas 
represented below might best be discussed at length.

Thanks,

Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM ...
Geir Ove Grønmo 
http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2000/papers/s29-02.html#N67308

...
Let's hope that the topic map community is able to come together 
to agree upon a language for defining constraints. Without it 
we would end up with a lot of different and incompatible languages. 
That would be very unfortunate and probably limit the 
interchangeability 
of topic maps.

------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andrius Kulikauskas  <ms@m...>
Date: Mon Aug 14, 2000 10:07pm
Subject: Association Type "Scope", for popularizing?
...
So, from this point of view, TopicMaps are not structurally
neutral.  I think that structurally they are atlases, and 
are intended primarily for that use.  In a sense, it is 
possible to code anything in terms of TopicMaps. 
However, to do this involves abandoning the hierarchical 
notion of Scope, or having a structurally confusing situation 
where the associations may be used to code a hierarchy of topics, 
and there is also a Scope hierarchy of topics that is coded 
completely differently. ...
------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Farrugia  <jim@s...>
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2000 5:59am
Subject: XTM and type hierarchies, assoc props, and inference rules

I'm looking through the paper by HHR called "Topic maps 
self-control" in which there is a discussion of type 
hierarchies, association properties, and inference rules, 
along with a suggestion that these issue may be being considered 
for adoption for XTM.
Can someone let me know the status of these considerations?
I am particularly curious about what people feel about the
ideas expressed by HHR in sections 3, 4, and 5 of his paper?
------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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