Re: [xtm-wg] User API - A new endeavour for topicmaps.org?

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Graham Moore
| 
| I think the API should be related to the model/ wait until thats done,
| otherwise it is ambiguous as to what you are manipulating.

* Thomas B. Passin
|
| I think that some useful work could be done before that happens.  

I think you are right, and I think we need a standardized API for
topic maps. There is also, however, no question that Graham is right
in that we must get the model nailed down before we can do the API.
This tradition (from SGML, XML, and topic maps) of doing the model
last just has to be broken away from.

The first thing that has to be done on this is to decide who should do
it: ISO or TopicMaps.Org. I have to admit that I don't know which
would be most appropriate, nor do I really care.

The second thing to be done is to draw up a requirements document.
This should really be done by whoever is appointed to do this work,
but I think anyone should feel free to come up with proposals.

So my conclusion is that this needs to be done, but that the time has
not yet come. Let's do the model first.

| For example, users will need to see a list of basename strings (so
| they can make a selection).  That's independent of the details of
| the model beyond the bare fact that there are such things as names
| attached to topics.  

This is true, but one needs a model specification in order to be able
to settle on such things as what classes the API should have, and so
it really is hard to get started before there is a model in place.

Another problem is that I think it is a requirement for the API that
high-level operations like this one be kept separate from the data
model.

| Another example is whether a request to return a topic should return
| an object identifier or the topic's id.  

It should get an object. As long as you are in an API that is the only
thing that makes sense. 

| Should a request for a topic ask for it by id or by object
| identifier, or should there be methods for both?

There should be methods for both.
 
| There are many issues like these that can be worked out before the
| detailed model is done.  It would be worth getting started now, I
| think.

I wouldn't oppose anyone starting to collect requirements now, but I
personally don't think I would have much spare energy to contribute to
this given that the work on the model and TMQL and TMCL is just
starting. Probably most others will be in the same position.

--Lars M.


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/