Re: Doubts in TMCL Requirements
"Giovani Librelotto" <[email protected]> Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:27:09 -0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.tmcl |
|---|---|
| Organization | University of Minho |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Message: 2 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [tmcl-wg] Doubts in TMCL Requirements > From: Lars Marius Garshol <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:43:26 +0100 > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > * Giovani Librelotto > | > | ==> Will TMCL specify a number of names, the content of > | baseNameString, or both? > > We don't really know yet. It could do both, and it definitely > will do the former, but you shouldn't take this document to > indicate that what's not mentioned is not going to be done. Ok, thanks Lars and Robert. :) I was confused about this. > | U3. Valid subject indicator > | --------------------------- > | (b). Topic of type T must have one subject indicator. > | Example: Topic of type project must have at least one subject > | indicator no matter what the value is. > | > | (c). Topic of type T must have a subject indicator in scope S. > | Example: Topic of type person must have a subject indicator > in scope > | social-security-number. > | > | (d). Topic of type T must have a subject indicator of type O. > | Example: Topic of type country must have a subject > indicator of type map. > | > | ==> Please, could you give me short XTM examples for this > three cases? > | For each use case, a valid topic and a invalid one. > > > Here's an invalid topic according to example (b) > > <topic id="foo"> > <instanceOf> > <topicRef xlink:href="#project"/> > </instanceOf> > </topic> > > and here's one that is valid: > > <topic id="bar"/> > <instanceOf> > <topicRef xlink:href="#project"/> > </instanceOf> > > <subjectIdentity> > <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="http://www.example.com/#bar"/> > </subjectIdentity> > </topic> Ok, this one is too simple. :) Thanks. > --- (c) > > This one makes no sense. Subject indicators don't have scope, > so this can't be done. (I guess this might have been one > reason you were confused by these. :-) It's my problem. I think the same. > --- (d) > > This one makes no sense, either, since subject indicators > don't have types, either. (Another reason you were confused, > I suppose.) You're right again. > Does this help? > -- > Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: > http://www.garshol.priv.no > Sure. :) But, if this constraint doesn't make sense, why are they in TMCL Requirements? Best regards, ------------------------------------ Giovani Rubert Librelotto Ph.D. Student Universidade do Minho Braga - Portugal [email protected] "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." (Wernher von Braun)