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

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[lars]
> My concerns with the graph formalism are mainly these:
> 
>  - it is far removed from the actual form of implementations, making
>    it much harder to understand for implementors, which are after all
>    the intended audience

I don't agree for two reasons:

1. Property sets are quite close to implementations, yet can be quite
close to implementations, and describe graphs.

2. Implementors are NOT NOT NOT the only audience. What would be the
use of a spec that could only be understood by implementors, but not
the people who purchase and use the implementors products? The market
can only grow, and topic maps become ubiquitous, if implementors, topic
map designers, and topic map users can all judge how XTM
implementations conform to the PM.

>  - it is insufficiently detailed in that some properties of the nodes
>    in the graph are left out, even properties of great importance to
>    processing 

Specifically?

 
>  - the form the graph is specified in (property-less nodes connected
>    by arcs with endpoints of two types) causes the description to
>    become difficult to follow, since everything is so type-less and
> so
>    very similar everywhere

Not so! Before making such indictments, please STUDY the existing
processing models -- the DC version and my straw man (which I assume
Kal gave you?). There are types for nodes, and types for arcs. I think
"very similar everywhere" is an aesthetic judgment that will dissipate
with study. I agree that the DC version is verbose and hard to read --
that is why I revised it for pedagogical purposes, boiling 30+ pages
down to two tables. With everything concentrated in one place, the
differences leap into sharp relief.

> | P.S. I heard a rumor to the effect that one vendor had done a
> | detailed review of the AG Review Draft, but held back out of a
> | sense of tact.
> 
> This vendor is not Ontopia. It may be some other vendor, but if so I
> know nothing whatever of it.

Actually, this worries me more than ever. Here's the thing -- I'm
making a real effort to understand everyone's ideas -- surrenduring
one's fixed views builds character and an open mind -- but I don't
sense an equivalent effort being made everywhere. (NOT you personally,
Lars -- we just had some agreement on requirements. ;-)

THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF! All ideas should be looked at, even the ones
we don't like or find ugly.

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/

------------------------ 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/2cW4jC/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/