Re: [xtm-wg] Comments on XTM Spec 1.0

["Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>]

> does now 'Hamlet' be a valid characteristic whenever the active (user)
> scope is 
> 
>   (a) #plays AND #shortname
> 
> or
> 
>   (b) plays OR #shortname

It is always the (a).

> 
> ? Given that you can have any number of alternative <baseName> sections,
> wouldn't
> it be more obvious not to use the 'union' but the 'intersection' above?
> This would
> be compatible with that merging rules.
> 
> Either way, having now a boolean expression somehow implicitly defining
> a semantics
> is an indication that there is somewhere a flaw.
>
> 
> In our implementation here, we now choose to constrain the scope to be
> _a single 
> topic_, but will lateron allow in some sort of algebraic expression to
> define this 
> scoping topic. At least, that's the plan...:-)
> 

I would say that you are right. 

Current merging processing semantic
is way too simple. It is actually an item 
on my agenda for the coming Paris Meeting.

Thanks,

Nikita.

-------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky, Cogitech Inc.
http://www.cogx.com
nogievet@cogx.com
(917)406-8734
Consultant in XML/XSLT/Xlink/TopicMaps
Cogito Ergo XML





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

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