Re: [xtm-wg] The Topic Naming Constraint

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

Geir Ove Grønmo wrote:
[...]
> AFAIK the XTM specification doesn't define a PSI for labelling purposes.

Yes it does:

  http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#display

Plus, there's the entire <variant> substructure. There are plenty
of facilities for providing topic labeling that do not provide
identity (and therefore poses no danger to inappropriate merging).
There's also <occurrences> as has been mentioned before. I have
read this multiple times in multiple messages but you guys are 
sticking to your guns. This doesn't make sense to me. As Steve
Newcomb said, the TNC is at the heart of topic maps, and when used
properly is very powerful. When any powerful tool is misused there's
plenty of danger. So don't abuse it. And write good documentation.

I addressed this in my response to Lars Marius*:
> [...]
> 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.

This goes back to <dispname> in ISO 13250. It's been there all along,
and I must strongly agree with Steve Newcomb; I can't understand how 
you guys are reading this the way you are. <baseName> is *not* a label,
it's there for subject identity. The whole reason why <dispname> 
existed in ISO 13250 was to provide the functionality you're demanding.
Where the word 'label' is used in XTM 1.0, I might note that the text
you cite was added by the editors during the last week prior to 
publication, and not to lay blame, but perhaps the group hadn't until 
now been made sensitive to this possible misinterpretation of meaning.

There may be other 'lurkers' in a spec that was rushed to the finish. 
ISO 13250 does not make such an error, given it certainly went through
a much more exhaustive and lengthy process to arrive at its current 
state. If XTM 1.0 uses "label" in such a way in Section 2 (its 
introduction to XTM concepts), then this should be considered an error
in the prose if it leads to this misinterpretation.

Murray

* "Re: virus alert(was Re: [xtm-wg] Topic Naming Constraint question)",
  Murray Altheim, Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:43:57 -0800
...........................................................................
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/