ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34 N0255
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34
Information Technology --
Document Description and Processing Languages
|
Title: |
UK National Body Comments to SC 34 N 229 - Topic Map Data Model - An Infoset-Based Proposal |
|
Source: |
BSI |
|
Project: |
|
|
Project editors: |
|
|
Status: |
|
|
Action: |
These comments are circulated to the SC 34 members in their entirety. |
|
Date: |
18 September 2001 |
|
Summary: |
For information and review. |
|
Distribution: |
SC34 and Liaisons |
|
Refer to: |
|
|
Supercedes: |
|
|
Reply to: |
Dr. James David Mason |
UK COMMENTS ON SC 34N0229 – A Topic
Map Data Model, An
infoset-based proposal
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.)
Clause 3
The standard should not define a
processing model, though an informative annex suggesting one
possible one might be acceptable.
The standard should, however, contain the formal specification of a
grove that represents the data
model.
The standard should not contain a
processing model for a language not defined in an international
standard. It should only contain
instructions for the processing and representations of elements that
have formally been defined. (None of
the additional elements defined in the proposed amendment of
13250 have any formal definitions
and therefore defining a processing model for them is premature.)
Clause 5.
The rules for merging topic maps
should be published as an annex to 13250 and not as part of
another standard.