CTM - Issues for the ISO meeting March 22 through 24 2007 in Oslo
Some of the issues may also appear at the TMQL issue list. They have to be discussed only
once.
Are templates topics?
Currently CTM uses a dedicated template syntax. If the committee decides to keep
TMQL predicates / functions as topics, the CTM editors should convert templates into topics, too
CTM syntax
Since we received criticism at our previous draft, CTM has undergone a heavy syntax change.
We need information if we should go further down the road with the proposed syntax
How are topic maps reified?
We have different proposals: Either we use the same reification mechanizm as for other constructs or
we use a dedicated syntax for it.
Proposal: Use a special topic ctm:self to reify the topic map instance
Do we need a different syntaxes for subject identifiers / subject locators
Currently we use the sid / slo syntax to assign subject
identifiers resp. subject locators to topics.
Proposal: Use the syntax from section 3.3.4 Topic References to assign subject identifiers / locators
to topics
Align supported datatypes with TMQL
TMQL and CTM should use the same datatypes, we need a review which datatypes are natively supported
Align syntax in general with TMQL
Does CTM contain syntax elements that do not play well with the syntax of TMQL?
Care should be taken for these syntactical constructs:
- Syntax for atoms (literals / values)
- Syntax for referring to topics via item identifier / subject identifier / subject locator
- Syntax for reification
- ... other elements like delimiters etc.
