[topicmapmail] Topic Naming Constraint

[Thompson, Miles]

Can somebody please explain (or point me to a reference) as to what the =
working group intends to do with the Topic Naming Constraint in the next =
version of the specification (XTM1.1).

I'm just a little freaked out by the statement on the Omnigator "merge" =
page that this "draconian" constraint would be done away with.

I'm assuming that the working group will continue to recognize the =
validity of this statement I found (via google) in the working group =
list (but want to be reassured that it is)...

> I see the usefulness of being able to do automatic namespace-based
> merges. This is extremely useful, but unfortunately the problem is
> that people (myself included) believe that base names are intended for
> labelling purposes, not for identification.

I am seriously hoping that, by placing certain "scopes" on Company =
ticker symbols I will be able to merge in data from multiple data =
sources so all data on the subject of a single company is accessible =
from one place (er Topic).

Personally, what would suit me just fine is if merging on basenames in =
the unconstrained scope was not automatic, but that in defined scopes, =
the basenames would merge. mmmm I suppose we strike here the problem =
with exact definition of 'scope' (whether to 'include' or 'exclude' =
scopes that share only one topic amongst many).

Arghh.. Woah !

OK So hopefully greater minds than I are working this out.=20

But hopefully someone can let me know that name space merging (via =
basenames in certain scopes) will continue to be available in the next =
version of the XTM spec as I really need it.

Than you and goodnight.

Miles Thompson
=20
=20