[topicmapmail] Zero or more roleplayers in XTM 1.0.1

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Marc de Graauw
|
| This was a change since 1.0, which required at least one. I am
| curious about the reason for this change - at first sight having a
| member element with a role specification but with zero role players
| does not seem to make sense, but since the change was very
| intentional presumably there is a good reason which I fail to
| see. Can anybody help?

The conflict between the text and the DTD was an error, and the reason
for going with the DTD is briefly described in the errata:

  <URL: http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/errata.html >

Also note that the new XTM syntax specification follows the (correct)
DTD:

  <URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/#N673 >

Whether this really *is* the right thing is another matter, of course.

| What use could this have:
| 
| <association>
|   <member>
|     <roleSpec>
|       <topicRef xlink:href="#role"/>
|     </roleSpec>
|   </member>
| </association>

Not much. It's an association where you know the role type, but not
the player. Note this decision:

  <URL: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topic_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm&id=assoc-role-player-type >

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