Topic Map Specifications | Customize | Filter | Export | Merge | Statistics | DB2TM | Add | Edit | Vizigate | Query | No schema | Google it! | Feedback | Ontopia | Not indexed |
[No name] (1)
Scoped Occurrences (12)
the name [label] would be a distinct
To fully represent ISO 13250 Topic Maps
SAM must allow for locators that do not address information resources.
Re "Does it represent that
storage location" the answer must be no. What if the address is
reassigned to different hardware containing a copy of the referenced
resource? What if the address is notational, as in the above example?
What if there are multiple copies of a particular resource (whether
notational or not, as per retrieval from caches rather than the
original resource)? This must be left an open issue for applications
ISO 13250 specifically states that
the subject identify "may or may not be machine-interpretable, or may
or may not be online". As noted above, it can also be "inferred from
the topic?s characteristics." Therefore SAM should not confuse subject
and resource as they are clearly two different things.
The requirement that variant names be
associated with specific base names is incorrect. A topic with more
than one base name would have to repeat the variants associated with
that base name for each base name. (This was a deliberate design
feature of ISO 13250 as it was realised that the same symbol could be
used for a topic which had been assigned multiple base names, either
as synonyms or as language-specific versions.)
Referring to RFC 2396 is likely to
only be relevant for a short while. Already IETF have published a
draft on Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) that may well
replace this specification in the longer term. The requirement that
all other values must begin with ?x-? is unsupportable given that IRI
might be needed in place of URI by the time SAM is published by ISO.
Given the possible multiple types of
schema/DTD for Topic Maps based on ISO 13250 architectural forms, SAM
should record the source of this information.
ISO 13250 deliberately allows
subject identity to be "inferred from the topic's characteristics."
SAM does not seem to allow for this.
ISO 13250 does not recognize the
"occurrence" default type introduced for XTM. If this is imposed on
the standard, then a means of clearly distinguishing default types
from user-defined types needs to be added to the model so that imposed
subjects specific to the management of the model can be distinguished
from the subjects that the author specified as part of the Topic
Normalization Form C should be
adopted in conformance with W3C rules for XML.
The concept of theme was deliberately
introduced into ISO 13250 to avoid the ambiguity that occurred when
the word topics was used to describe the set of referenced topic map
concepts used to scope an item. Dropping this term is likely to lead
to ambiguities within SAM.
It should be possible to create
topics that represent strings. I might want to create a topic that
refers to all occurrences of the string XML