[topicmapmail] Reification of topic map constructs in XTM 1.0 vs. XTM 2.0

[Alexander Mikhailian]

>... or not. :) I am not sure if it makes sense to keep the item
>identifier. Maybe it is confusing (but allowed) to have a subject
>identifier on a topic which is equal to an item identifier of another
>Topic Maps construct. Maybe the dropping / keeping should be
>configurable.

>IMO the cleanest solution would be to drop both, if they exist for
>reification purposes only.

I'd rather keep the item identifier for the automated conversion as a 
default option. It will look ugly in XML. But think about a different 
use case where we export a topic map from a topic maps engine into XTM 2.0. 
We will have to add this item identifier during the serialisation, 
because the deserialisation process described in the XTM 2.0 draft 
explicitly states that an item identifier should be be created for the 
topic. And if it will be created in the TM engine, it will have to be 
exported. This has an advantage of being a straightforward solution, at
least.

See the 2nd paragraph in [1] for the exact wording.

[1] http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/#sect-proc-reifier