[topicmapmail] Announcement of XML Schema for ISO 13250 Topic Maps

[David RR Webber]

Message text written by Murray Altheim
>> > Some features of ISO 13250 have been *deliberately * let down by XTM
1.0
> > for clarity and simplification's sake, through collective reflexion of
the
> > AG, like facets for instance. (I consider it a good thing, for I really
> > never understood what the hell facets represented and what they could
be
> > used to).
> 
> That's because you never saw a requirement for them. Those of us who have
> identified the requirement consider them essential.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there was no way to express facets
in XTM syntax. The XTM 1.0 syntax does not have explicit facet syntax, but
this doesn't stop anyone from expressing facet relationships. We added 
baseName back into occurrence for this reason, at Steve Pepper's request,
if I remember correctly. And it's important to note that XTM isn't meant to

suit absolutely everyone's needs. Every spec has an 80/20 point. Simplicity

was judged a very important goal for XTM.<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I've been really pushing use of a layered approach - and certainly if
baseName
is acting like UID - then this is a great way to do facet detailing -
without 
burdening the structure layer with that overhead and complexity. 
Maintenance
and versioning is managable that way - something the W3C have not
really addressed in Schema - and certainly a glaring open-issue for both
'Best Practices' work and ebXML registry to solve.

DW.