grove plans (off-topic; was: Re: [xtm-wg] Does processing a TM yield one graph, or several?)

[peterj@wrox.com]

--- In xtm-wg@egroups.com, "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...> wrote:
> [Steve Newcomb:]
> [good stuff snipped]
> We can all see this "Do we need the <xtm> container element?"
> discussion coming.  There is a perception of a real requirements
> conflict here.  To my way of thinking, however, the advantages of
> having the <xtm> container element far outweigh the disadvantage
> (which seems to me to amount, in toto, to a really insignificant
> amount of extra complexity).  But that's just my opinion, and I have
> just one vote.
> 
> -Steve

[pj] i second that (Steve, can I borrow your other arm by proxy for 
this vote).

can i add that I don't think it is enough to think of this problem in 
purely technical terms. 

i am going to be really explicit here. as i see it, topic maps (and 
the data structures and information that they contain) will be seen 
as intellectual property. if your TM server can't distinguish between 
the IP of different TM providers before, during, and after 
processing, in interchange format or processed graph or whatever...

i don't care how you truly brainy techies do it, please do this bit 
well.

end of plea.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/337252/_/973771673/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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