ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34 N252
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34
Information Technology --
Document Description and Processing Languages
|
TITLE: |
National
Body Comments Received on SC 34 N 229 – Topic Map Data Model – An
Infoset-Based Proposal |
|
SOURCE: |
SC 34
Secretariat |
|
PROJECT: |
|
|
PROJECT EDITOR: |
|
|
STATUS: |
|
|
ACTION: |
For
information and review |
|
DATE: |
2001-09-06 |
|
DISTRIBUTION: |
SC34 and
Liaisons |
|
REFER TO: |
|
|
REPLY TO: |
Dr. James
David Mason |
National Body Comments Received on SC 34 N 229 – Topic Map Data
Model – An Infoset-Based Proposal
Japan Comments Received
(1) NP Processing
The National Body of Japan recognizes the importance of Data Model and Processing Model. For the development of those models in SC34, new projects should be officially added to the SC34 projects; first of all, processing of NP ballots should be started. The National Body of Japan requests the NP ballots.
(2) Title
The wording "Processing model" should be added in the title of this document, because there are some descriptions on the processing model in "3. XTM processing model".
(3) Relationship
There should be a clarification on the relationship between Data Model and Processing Model and a description on the positions of those models among the topic maps related standards.
(4) 2.1 The topic map
information item
The
following [topic map] should be added:
[topic
map]
This is
the set of topic map information items specified by mergeMap elements.
(5) 2.4 Variant information
items
The
following [parameter] and [variant] should be added:
[parameter]
This is
the set of Locator information items.
[variant]
This is
the set of Variant information items.
(6) 3. XTM processing model
The <roleSpec> element should be added.
U.K. Comments Received
General Comments
The data
model fails to support all features of ISO/IEC 13250, and provides information
that is not
part of
an ISO/IEC 13250 information set. The model must be fully conformant with
ISO/IEC 13250
rather
than being based on a derivative from the international standard for which
there are no formally
recognized
definitions.
No
allowance is made for the use of facets as part of the data model.
Clause 1 Purpose and Scope
Remove 1st
and 2nd sentences of second paragraph (they are unsuitable for an international
standard).
Remove
"serve many purposes" from end of remaining text in 2nd paragraph.
Remove
all material after the 2nd paragraph, especially the last sentence (copyright
cannot be
claimed
on material submitted for use as a proposed international standard)
Clause 2.2
The
required unique identifier of a topic should be distinguished from other
potential source locators
(such as
a count of topics in an XPath statement)
The set
of sort names assigned to a topic should also be part of the information set as
it may adjust
the order
in which topics are presented.
Clauses 2.3/2.4
The set
of sort name and display names should not be grouped in a single Variants
information item
as they
have different processes applied to them. They should be provided as separate
information
sets.
Clause 2.5
The last
sentence reads "Occurrence information items are considered equal if the
values of their
[value],
[resource], [scope], and [class] properties are equal." Is this true if
their two source locators
differ?
(A similar question can be raised in other clauses, but here we are talking
about references
between
topic maps. Here we are talking about references outside of the topic map,
where the
statement
is more unsupportable.)
Clause 2.9
The
statement "No two information items within the same topic map information
set may contain the
same
locator information item in their [source locators] property." needs to be
proved. Why cannot two
associations
contain the same source locators? Surely a pair of topics can be connected by
more
than one
association.
(The
fifth and sixth of the listed constraints also need to be discussed. The latter
is incomplete at very
least as
topics can have the same base name, providing the names at least have a
different scope.)