[topicmapmail] occurrence abuse ? Was: [geolang-comment] Firstproposals for ISO 639 and 3166 available

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Kal Ahmed
| 
| I accept that this is true. However, I am not suggesting that people
| should be prevented from inserting typed data into topic
| occurrences. I am merely suggesting that the expression of
| data-types should be in XML Schema, not in some "XTM DataTyping
| Schema". Why should application developers be forced to learn Yet
| Another Set Of Data Types and how YASODT maps to XML Schema/their
| flavour of SQL/whatever other system is using/providing typed data
| structures ?

I think we all agree that we don't want to invent our own data types.
 
| Separating the representation of typed data from the essential topic
| map paradigm would allow [...]

We may have miscommunicated, then. I want the datatypes to be in TMCL,
and for TMQL to use them. I don't want them in the SAM, I just want
the SAM to not screw things up for TMCL and TMQL.

| I have yet to see a single convincing argument *against* layering
| the datatyping. 

I haven't seen any either.

| The argument that those wanting datatyping would be upset by having
| to add an extra element into their XTM interchange document just
| doesn't cut it because XTM is already verbose and because they would
| have to do it to represent structured data anyway.

My idea was that we would do something like (using a datatyping
extension to OSL for illustration):

  <occurrence min="0" max="1" internal="yes" type="integer">
  <instanceOf><internalTopicRef href="#number-of-characters"/></instanceOf>
  </occurrence>

rather than have datatyping in the SAM itself. I don't think it makes
any sense to have some constraints in the SAM and some in TMCL, or to
have some in TMCL and some in an added-on XML Schema.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >