Re: [xtm-wg] FYI: Buglets on www.topicmaps.org

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

A specification is a place to make clear concepts, not to show the 
variety of things that can be done with them. It's certainly possible
to do what you've described below, but I don't see this as helpful in
elucidating the concepts, and is confusing. Unless the text of the 
specification includes as explicit a description as you have provided 
in your email (which I don't see that it does, especially given you've
even had to use the word "assuming", those assumptions undocumented), 
then this example is distinctly not helpful.

If we're trying to provide an illustration of how to reify a PSI in
order to shorten some syntax, then do that under a suitable heading,
but don't mix it into another section under a different topic and
assume the reader will understand the assumptions you have made based
on the syntax of an example.

And verbosity is not an issue. Our design goals were explicitly in the
other direction. From Section 1.2 of XTM 1.0:
>
>   8.The design of XTM shall be formal and concise. 
>   9.XTM documents shall be easy to create. 
>  10.Terseness in XTM markup is of minimal importance. 

I don't see that the specification is concise on this point, and is
(at least to two people who have commented, Robert Barta and myself) 
confusing. Providing a reified topic saves typing, but is not simpler.
It makes the topic map less understandable, less portable, and opens
up the possibility of future editing errors. I'd prefer we show people
how to use the PSIs we provide them rather than circumvent them.

Steve Pepper wrote:
> 
> At 15:59 03/03/01 -0800, Murray Altheim wrote:
> >Robert Barta wrote:
> > > 2) In
> > >
> > >       <http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#elt-baseName>http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#elt-baseName
> > >
> > >     there is an example referring to #en only although
> > >
> > >       <http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/language.xtm#en>http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/language.xtm#en
> > >
> > >     is probably intended. There is one more instances with #da,
> > >     but maybe also others.
> >
> >Yes, you are correct regarding this error. The full PSI should be
> >used in this case (and IMO, this type of confusion is something one
> >has to watch carefully for). The editors of the XTM 1.0 specification
> >are on this mailing list, and I'm assuming they will fix this problem.
> >I'll leave these types of fixes to the document editors rather than
> >tread on their turf.
> 
> This is *NOT* an error (although it obviously could have been
> clearer).
> 
> PSIs can be referenced either directly or indirectly, and the
> spec gives examples of both usages:
> 
> 1. Direct reference
> http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/index.html#ex-association
> 
> Here, the third example shows the use of the PSIs that define a
> "class-instance" association, and the roles "class" and "instance".
> The URL of the published subject indicator is given directly in
> the markup for the association element that establishes the
> relationship between the topics "hamlet" and "play".
> 
> 2. Indirect reference
> http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/index.html#ex-variant
> 
> Here, the intention is to use the published subject "suitability
> for sorting" as a parameter for a variant of the base name
> "William Shakespeare".
> 
> Instead of providing the URL for that PSI *directly*, there is a
> reference to a *local topic* with the ID "sort". This topic, in
> turn, references the published subject in core.xtm.
> 
> Both methods are valid. The advantage of the first is that the
> intention is immediately obvious simply from looking at the
> syntax of the element in question. The advantage of the second
> is that it can be significantly less verbose.
> 
> The example that Robert refers to, at
> http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/index.html#ex-baseName
> 
>     assumes the existence of topics with the IDs "en" and
>     "da" that reify the subjects "English" and "Danish"
>     respectively
> 
> -- as is stated explicitly. Since these topics are not included
> in the example, we cannot know whether they establish their subject
> identity via http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/language.xtm or by
> some other means.
> 
> Steve

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 ---------------------~-~>
Find software faster. Search more than 20,000
software solutions on KnowledgeStorm. Register
now and get started.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ee3V2C/RNSCAA/2h4EAA/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/