Re: [xtm-wg] Topic Naming Constraint question

[Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>]

At 12:57 22/02/01 +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>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.

That the topic naming constraint (TNC) is broken is a conclusion
you arrived at long ago, so it comes as no surprise that you see
this as further proof of your contention!

As you know, I do sympathise with your arguments. (At the same
time, I believe there is great value in what originally motivated
the TNC.) But the fact is that it's there now, and we have to live
with it. Let's gather experience with what we have now and let that
feed the requirements for XTM 2.0. As usual, life will probably
provide the answer and we will all be older and wiser as a result!

>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.

If this is the only bug in the specification, we will have exceeded
even my wildest hopes and expectations!

>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?

My approach would be to have the script use scoping only on names
that actually conflict -- at least as an initial strategy, and see
how that pans out. Remember, we're at the start of a big adventure
here, all of us. With XTM 1.0 we now have a tool with which to go
out and harvest a lot more experience and deepen our understanding
of what this global knowledge interchange stuff is really all about.
We won't succeed in that if we expect to know all the answers up
front, or to have created an absolutely bullet-proof spec first
time around.

(This is not really directed at you, Lars Marius, it's an
exhortation I've been wanting to make to the whole community
for a long time :-)

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

Nothing will seem right if you believe the TNC is broken. Do
whatever seems to be least wrong and see how it works out.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Technology Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Maridalsveien 99B, N-0461 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/  phone: +47-22805465  GSM: +47-90827246


------------------------ 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/