Topic Map Specifications | Filter | Export | Statistics | Query
|
|
|
Scoped Occurrences (5)
-
My feeling is that the SAM should only
concern itself with those rules for scope that are required to make
the SAM internally consistent and to allow the application of rules
such as name-based merging and duplicate identification. As far as I
can see, there is a need to express a rule for equivalence of scope
sets and that is it.
(term-scope-def)
-
I think it is more likely that it
is the [subject indicator] property which is incorrectly named. The
thing you get from this property is the address of the resource, not
the resource itself and the name should reflect that.
(prop-subj-address-name)
-
I think that the SAM should be concerned only
with the information model for topic maps. Any adjuncts to handle
topic map schema should be built on top of the SAM. Presumably it
should then also be a goal for TMCL and other extension specifications
to ensure that any additional information items are available as
computed properties from basic SAM properties.
(prop-schema)
-
Unless/until there is a common API, I
think SAM conformance in terms of an API are pretty meaningless. What
is not meaningless though are the operations that the SAM requires a
topic map processor to perform and validation that a processor does
indeed perform those operations is probably best done not by
inspection but by testing the application against a conformance test
suite. So SAM + CXTM + conformance test suite is needed to prove the
level of conformance which I as a user would expect from an
application, and to which I as a developer would build my topic map
processing software.
(sam-conformance)
-
The way in which a subject
address relates to a subject is in many ways related to the means of
dereferencing the address. For example, a single http: protocol URI
can be dereferenced to many different byte sequences - so the subject
address cannot be considered to represent the content at that
location. Equally, a urn:isbn: reference cannot be dereferenced at all
and could be considered meaningless as a subject address, whereas a
unique object identifier in a content management system may actually
always return precisely the same sequence of bytes and so could be
considered to represent a specific binary object. It might be useful
for the SAM to say something about the stability requirements of a
subject address - e.g. to represent a specific binary object, a
subject address must be given in a notation which cannot be
interpreted in such a way as to retrieve two different byte-sequences
(excepting error conditions such as network or server outages).
(term-subject-address-def)
|
|
|