Re: [xtm-wg] XTM-ISS Important XLink difference in DTDs

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

[Graham:]
> The standard basically confuses typing with naming,
> 
> 	if I have <occrl occrole="picture of graham" href="... />
> 
> 	it says that this is the name or title
> 
> 	if I have <occrl type="jpeg" href=".... />
> 
> 	then the name is jpeg and this occ is also an instance of jpeg
> 
> 	What I want to express clearly is that I have an occurrence with a name
> 'picture of graham' of type jpeg.
> 
> 	<occrl type="jpeg" nameservice="picture of graham' href ... />

Graham, I wonder whether you're proposing to add a new feature that I
would call "explicit thumbnails of traversal targets".  If so, it's a
helluva good feature, but I don't understand why you call it
"nameservice".  I don't know why you would make namespaces out of
thumbnails.  I can certainly see why you might display them as pick
lists, though.  Come to think of it, thumbnails often won't be name
strings, anyway; they'll often be graphics, or greeked text layouts.

> RDF has a very powerful mechanism for reified statements that is
> enabled through the simplicity of the model. Topic maps self
> inconsistency prevents us from 'doing' reified stataments in an
> sensible and easy way. In order to define a reified statment it is
> necessary to create a topic for the association. This is a hack
> because the structures do not support closure.

Please do not be offended when I remind you that the requirements for
the syntax are not the same as the requirements for the underlying
model.  It will be very helpful if you will explain (without resorting
to any argument based on the specious principle that the structure of
the syntax should reflect the structure of the underlying model) how
the interchange of topic map information will be negatively impacted
by this "hack", as you call it.  (Note that I did not say, "processing
of topic map information"; I said, "interchange of topic map
information".)

This "hack", as you call it, makes topic maps more teachable, more
learnable, and more accessible to ordinary mortals, based on actual
experience.  I personally and most sincerely believe that
accessibility is the most important desideratum in the design of the
XTM syntax, version 1.0.  (Well, OK, that's true only if we care about
XTM's ability to succeed in the real world.)  Graham, you are far too
intelligent, quick and sophisticated to be any judge of what's
teachable and learnable by ordinary mortals.  (My own judgment in that
regard used to be almost as bad as yours, but, to my chagrin, it's been
getting better and better for a couple of decades now.)

> I don't think that the discussions needs to go onto inference rules
> there is a more fundamental mis balance. And if we are to achieve
> synergy with RDF which we will do. Then this is a very important
> point. My guess is that the conceptual model will show a structure
> of this form in order to achieve both an organic model and synergy
> with RDF.

But that would be quite wonderful!  I think most of us would heartily
welcome such an outcome.  And it's perfectly OK if the underlying
model is structurally different from the the syntax, as long as the
process of translating from the interchange format to the underlying
model is deterministic.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

405 Flagler Court
Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
No blistered feet. No crowd. No travel. Intraware invites you to attend
a virtual tradeshow: Ensuring Scalable and Secure E-Business Systems.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9219/4/_/337252/_/969944618/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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