Re: [xtm-wg] Topic Naming Constraint question

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Steve Pepper
| 
| (3) If there is no association type that qualifies as being "primary",
|      consider scoping the conflicting names by the topics themselves.
| 
| Option (3) is probably the one I would recommend in your case, Lars
| Marius

If this is the solution I can see no other conclusion than that the
topic naming constraint is broken.  Scoping a topic by itself is
nothing other than subverting the topic naming constraint in order to
avoid being hit by it, and does nothing at all to support interchange
of topic maps, which was the original intent of the constraint.

I accept that you are trying to help, but if this is the best we can
do I am really worried that we have created a specification with a bug
in it.

Also, since this topic map is created automatically by a script, the
question is what I should do to avoid this problem.  Should all base
names of standards use self-scope?  

With products I can probably work around it by using the vendor as
scope, but it doesn't seem right to do so.

--Lars M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/