Re: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[nikita]
> | I think that following Steve Newcomb's model, in the end (or in the
> | beginning :-)) there should be the following base classes:
> | Node A, Node T, Node S and labeled arcs.

[lars]
> I have to say that I'm not at all happy with this model. Much of the
> intent I agree with, but the form it has taken I find repugnant in
> the extreme.

Don't be shy Lars! Say what you feel? :-)

Can you expand on both parts of your statement? (1) What do you perciee
that the intent is, and (2) what's repugnant about the form? (The
notion of nodes connected by typed arcs seems simple and elegant to me,
but then what do I know?)

> | In Lars view they are probably pure abstract classes in some
> | particular Implementation Model (ASR), 
> 
> I would prefer the abstract data model not to use classes, since that
> would look altogether too much like an implementation and might cause
> problems for us if and when we want to make a standardized topic map
> API. This is also the reason why I'm not so keen on UML.

Lars, I am very glad to hear you say this. But property sets define
classes, does not this objection apply to groves as well?

Also, in some ways "not look like an implementation" is a really good
general design criterion for PM. I should say, though (hoping I do not
distort Steve's view) that one reason for typed arcs and property-less
nodes was precisely so as NOT to look like an implementation. If this
aspect of the PM is what you find repugnant, that's pretty ironic, eh?
 
> | while in my view they are actual building blocks in some virtual
> | "academic excersise" (PM).  :-)
> 
> Well, Nikita, I guess you could salvage that exercise from being
> labelled as purely academic by explaining what you want to achieve
> with it. :-)

Yes, Nikita, I'd certainly like to hear more on the ASR, as you call
it.


> | Here is what I mean by PM:
> | It is a low level graph consisting from A,T and S nodes and labeled
> arcs.
> 
> That position I can't accept. This is as if I should say: "Here's
> what
> I mean by PM: 'my infoset strawman'." This is not a basis for
> discussion, this is a particular model. If we are to get anywhere
> there has to be a willingness on the part of all participants to
> accept more than one possible model.

I think this is a language issue of English between two non-native
speakers. Lars, I think you are mistaking clear expression for the wish
to dominate. I too "mean" by the PM what Nikita says, but my meaning is
provisional. It will evolve as the discussion does.

S.

=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EVNB7A/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/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/