[topicmapmail] A somewhat new topic maps format

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| There's no point in trying to preserve the -id-of a <scope> element.
| The data model does not preserve these, and so they are not really
| part of the topic map.

* Alexander Johannesen
| 
| My thinking here is that since XTM allows them, some might use it,
| [...]

They may, but why are you preserving that -id-, and not the ones on
<subjectIdentity/>, <topicRef/>, <mergeMap/>, <baseNameString/>, and
so on? What I'm trying to say is that none of these have any topic map
significance at all, and so I think adding special support for this id
is likely to make people think that it *does* matter, so I think your
vocabulary is far better off without this attribute.

| [...] and as you've already pointed out, the missing CSXTM to XTM is
| coming up. They are meant to be at least compatible on the basics.

That's what I'm trying to say: they are compatible even if you take
this attribute away. It has no significance, and so there's no problem
if you lose it.
 
| (On a side note; should this rather be done for the upcoming XTM
| 1.1?)

<URL: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topic_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm&id=xtm-unused-ids >

The "occurrence in text" link is broken, unfortunately. The London
meeting decided to keep these attributes, but only because people
might use them for non-topic-map reasons.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| A scope is a *set* of topics, but it doesn't seem that your -scope-
| attribute can handle this. If so, that's a problem you really ought
| to fix.
 
* Alexander Johannesen
|
| Yes, at the moment there is a one-to-one scoping. I'm thinking that
| this could be another case of <also scope="..." />.

HyTM solves this nicely by making the -scope- attribute IDREFS.
Another way to do it might be a <scoperef> child element.
 
| It is a typo. "published subject *Indicators*". Will fix. Other
| subject indicators will come later, but this was the one I needed
| right away.

Well, in the syntax there should be no difference between PSIs and
plain SIs. If I were you I'd just smush them together and forget about
the difference entirely.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Members, on the other hand, only exist in the XTM syntax. Elsewhere
| they are called association roles, and I would strongly recommend
| using that term instead.
 
* Alexander Johannesen
|
| Why? As CSXTM was meant to be a simplified version of XTM, wouldn't
| "member" fit the bill?

That's the question: are you making a simplified version of XTM, or
are you making a syntax for topic maps? I think the latter is the
right thing to do. XTM is just another topic map syntax, and the only
thing special about it is that it's the only standardized one that's
widely used.

If you are making a topic map syntax I would strongly recommend the
"role" terminology.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Oh, and one more thing: it would be good to have a DTD for
| this. Prose just cannot compete with a DTD for conciseness and
| precision, and you can't validate an XML document against prose.
 
* Alexander Johannesen
|
| The prose is because of the incredibly swiftness this was done
| in. :) If anyone really are interested in this format - i.e. it
| survives the test of actual implementations - I might do so. :)

I think you'll have a much greater chance of actually seeing
implementations if you add a DTD. Without it there are just too many
open questions for anyone to bother implementing it. At least that was
my immediate reaction.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >