RE: [xtm-wg] Re: Reification of topic map constructs

["Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>]

Lars,
This has been intensely discussed during the meeting in Dallas.
Please wait until we post the minutes where  we are trying to report
as precisely as possible what was the discussion on this issue.
I agree with you that this point has to be handled very precisely and
should not leave place for any ambiguity or different interpretations.
We are still working on it now.

Michel

==========================================
Michel Biezunski, InfoLoom
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Email: mb@infoloom.com  Web: www.infoloom.com
========================================== 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:larsga@garshol.priv.no]
> Sent: November 14, 2000 2:21 PM
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Re: Reification of topic map constructs
> 
> 
> * Steven R. Newcomb
> >
> > Notes regarding the reification of topic map constructs as topic
> > nodes.
> 
> While I agree with everything you write here I would like to voice some
> concerns with this whole subject. I have the impression that in this
> I am really out of step with the rest of the community, but as someone
> barred from coming to f2f meetings I guess that is more or less
> unavoidable.
> 
> The reification of topic map constructs is a radical change to the topic
> map model, a model that has not even been properly described yet.
> (My concern over these two things is closely interconnected.)
> 
> I feel very strongly that while reification is useful it does not 
> belong in
> XTM 1.0. I feel that it is necessary for topic maps as described in
> ISO 13250 (possibly slightly extended) to be fully defined and agreed
> on before further substantial changes are made.
> 
> Reification of topic map constructs has both deep and wide 
> implications for implementations of topic maps and also for TMQL,
> and I feel, again very strongly, that it is very important to stop the
> forward momentum for long enough that we can properly define the
> status quo before moving on.
> 
> Am I totally out of step with everyone else in thinking this?
> 
> --Lars M.
> 
> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/337252/_/974215127/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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