RE: [xtm-wg] Questions about Merging.

["Jason Diamond" <jason@injektilo.org>]

Hi.

Nobody had any comments at all? Was I that far off base?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Diamond [mailto:jason@injektilo.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:18 PM
> To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Questions about Merging.
>
>
> Hi.
>
> Regarding Annex F (XTM Processing Requirements), if these are requirements
> why are they labelled informative and not normative?
>
> Why is there no "Subject Equivalence Principle"? Is this assumed to be
> derived from Section 2.4 (Merging)?
>
> Section 2.4 (Merging) states that topics have the same subject if
> "they have
> one or more subject indicators in common". Is this meant to include the
> <topicRef> elements located inside the topics' <subjectIdentity>
> elements or
> just the <subjectIndicatorRef> elements?
>
> Postcondition 3 of F.5.1 (Topic merge operation) says "The set of subject
> indicators of M is equal to the union of the set of subject
> indicators of A
> and B." Does this also include <topicRef>s? If so, then if a
> <topicRef> and
> <subjectIndicatorRef> are determined to be equivalent using F.3.1
> (Equivalence of <subjectIndicatorRef> and <topicRef>), which one is
> discarded? This might be a moot point since B.4 (Referencing the Subject)
> only shows that a Topic has zero or more SubjectIndicators. Unless, of
> course, this includes <topicRef>s.
>
> What I'm wondering is this: do XTM processors differentiate between
> <subjectIndicatorRef>s and <topicRef>s after deserializing an XTM
> document?
> So, if the in-memory topic map was reserialized, should the
> <subjectIdentity> element contain identical <topicRef> and
> <subjectInidcatorRef> elements as the original document?
>
> Postcondition 2 of F.5.1 (Topic merge operation) says "The set of name
> characteristics of M is equal to the union of the set of name
> characteristics of A and B." If two topics are deemed to have the same
> subject according to 2.4 (Merging) by virtue of having one
> subject indicator
> in common but both topics have different base names in the same
> scope, which
> base name gets discarded? The reason I ask is because 2.2.2.1 (Base Name)
> says "Base names are subject to the topic naming constraint,
> which prohibits
> a processed topic map from containing multiple topics with the same base
> name in the same scope." (The definition for topic naming
> constraint, by the
> way, doesn't state this although the definition for base name does.)
>
> Does the topic naming constraint apply to base names in the unconstrained
> scope? Topic "t35" in F.5.1 (Topic merge operation) contains two
> base names
> in the unconstrained scope. If multiple base names within the
> unconstrained
> scope are allowed then does Topic A (with only one base name in the
> unconstrained scope) address the same subject as Topic B (with two base
> names in the unconstrained scope) if Topic A's base name matches
> only one of
> Topic B's or would Topic A be required to have both of Topic B's?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason Diamond
> http://injektilo.org/
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/982687990/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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