Re: TM/JSON first draft

Hi Robert,

[...]
> http://www.cerny-online.com/tmjson/

Thanks for posting it. I have to admit that I don't see the advantage
of TM/JSON above JTM yet. The last footnote in the document gives the
impression that you want to use it as poor man's TMQL.

Anyway, a few comments:
* Requiring the topic id (again) is IMO wrong. I am happy that neither
  TM/XML 1.1, JTM 1.0, XTM 2.1, nor CTM mandates a topic identifier.
  If a topic has just a subject identifier, the serializer has to
  generate a topic id which is error prone and results into a topic
  map which represents not a 1:1 mapping of the original data model.
* It's unclear to me why the keys have sometimes a meaning (i.e.
  "movie" or "person" which indicates the type of a topic) and
  sometimes not (like "publication-year" which represents not the type
  of the occurrence). In the latter case, the key defines simply a
  container for an occurrence or a name.

Further, I find TM/JSON too verbose and it remains unclear why
"readability of the document" is a design constraint. I cannot imagine
that humans would encode their topic maps in TM/JSON because they have
to repeat the associations at each role player. And for machines, the
name of the name / occurrence "containers" (like "publication-year")
is unimportant.

> so please excuse all the typos.

Typos excused but not the fallback to the topic id. ;)

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

<http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/> German Topic Maps mailing list
<http://tinytim.sourceforge.net/> Open Source Topic Maps engine
<http://mappa.semagia.com/> Mappa - Python Topic Maps engine