Re: virus alert(was Re: [xtm-wg] Topic Naming Constraint question)

[Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Nikita Ogievetsky
> |
> | I believe that you are considering <baseName> elements to be just
> | labels.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> | If you just need a label, use <resourceData> with <instanceOf>
> | #description or else.
> 
> I don't want a label, I want names for my topics that will be
> displayed by all topic map software.  The trouble is that when I make
> such names the TNC intervenes and I can't really find a good solution
> to avoiding that intervention. I can't expect any software to display
> my topics correctly if I do as you suggest.

Your disagreement with the TNC sounds like your unwillingness to accept
that <baseName> is distinctly *not* a label, it functions specifically
in the role of adding a [potentially-] scoped identifier that just happens
to be a name. <baseName> is not a label, was never supposed to be just a 
label, and should only be used as a label in circumstances where it is 
unambibuously possible to use it as a label (e.g., when there are no
conflicts).

> | Otherwise <baseName> is just as important for <topic> identification
> | as <subjectIdentity>.
> 
> I don't buy that. What makes you say this, and how do you envision
> this working?

That is precisely what the TNC is designed to provide. The XTM 
specification seems to answer this question in quite a number of 
places, as does Section 5.2.2 of ISO 13250 [notes 31, 33, and 34 
of ISO 13250 are pretty explicit about both the value and dangers 
of the TNC]. I'm not sure how much more explicit the spec could be.

> | In other words <baseName> is not for labeling!!!
> 
> I am having real trouble following you here. Our navigator displays
> basenames as the names, or labels, if you wish, of topics. Do you mean
> to say that it should stop doing this?

Sounds to me that your software is in error. It should rely on what 
used to be <dispname> in ISO 13250, and is now either (as has been
mentioned) a 'core.xtm#display'-scoped <variantName> or a similarly-
scoped <resourceData> in <occurrence>. Your software should make a 
preference for these types of display names (i.e., labels) over use
of <baseName> whenever there is a conflict or ambiguity.

There will always be homographic problems with names, but blaming a
useful feature in XTM for this seems wrong. Names provide identity, and
the proper scoping of them is the solution. XTM provides features that
allow for sort and display names; I don't understand why you insist on
not using them. 

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

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