[tmcl-wg] Doubts in TMCL Requirements

[Giovani Librelotto]

> Message: 2
> To: tmcl-wg@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject: Re: [tmcl-wg] Doubts in TMCL Requirements
> From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:43:26 +0100
> Reply-To: tmcl-wg@isotopicmaps.org
> 
> 
> * Giovani Librelotto
> |
> | ==> Will TMCL specify a number of names, the content of 
> | baseNameString, or both?
> 
> We don't really know yet. It could do both, and it definitely 
> will do the former, but you shouldn't take this document to 
> indicate that what's not mentioned is not going to be done. 

Ok, thanks Lars and Robert. :)
I was confused about this.

> | U3. Valid subject indicator
> | ---------------------------
> | (b). Topic of type T must have one subject indicator.
> | Example: Topic of type project must have at least one subject 
> | indicator no matter what the value is.
> | 
> | (c). Topic of type T must have a subject indicator in scope S.
> | Example: Topic of type person must have a subject indicator 
> in scope 
> | social-security-number.
> | 
> | (d). Topic of type T must have a subject indicator of type O.
> | Example: Topic of type country must have a subject 
> indicator of type map.
> | 
> | ==> Please, could you give me short XTM examples for this 
> three cases? 
> | For each use case, a valid topic and a invalid one.
>  
> 
> Here's an invalid topic according to example (b)
> 
>   <topic id="foo">
>     <instanceOf>
>       <topicRef xlink:href="#project"/>
>     </instanceOf>
>   </topic>
> 
> and here's one that is valid:
> 
>   <topic id="bar"/>
>     <instanceOf>
>       <topicRef xlink:href="#project"/>
>     </instanceOf>
> 
>     <subjectIdentity>
>       <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="http://www.example.com/#bar"/>
>     </subjectIdentity>
>   </topic>

Ok, this one is too simple. :)
Thanks. 

> --- (c)
> 
> This one makes no sense. Subject indicators don't have scope, 
> so this can't be done. (I guess this might have been one 
> reason you were confused by these. :-)

It's my problem. I think the same.
 
> --- (d)
> 
> This one makes no sense, either, since subject indicators 
> don't have types, either. (Another reason you were confused, 
> I suppose.)

You're right again.

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

Sure. :)
But, if this constraint doesn't make sense, why are they in TMCL
Requirements?
Best regards,

------------------------------------ 
Giovani Rubert Librelotto 
Ph.D. Student 
Universidade do Minho 
Braga - Portugal 
grl@di.uminho.pt 

"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
(Wernher von Braun)