ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34 N252

ISO/IEC logo

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
(ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 Chairman)
Y-12 National Security Complex
Information Technology Services
Bldg. 9113 M.S. 8208
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A.
Telephone: +1 865 574-6973
Facsimile: +1 865 574-1896
E-mail: mailto:[email protected]
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/sc34oldhome.htm

Ms. Sara Hafele, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat
American National Standards Institute
25 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Tel: +1 212 642 4976
Fax: +1 212 840 2298
E-mail: [email protected]

 


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.)