- From: Graham Moore <gdm@empolis.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:54:21 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Topicmapmail@Infoloom. Com'" <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>, <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
I think the DOM API as a accessor to topic maps is useful up to a point but ultimately will not convey the true functional semantics that are in TopicMaps. It will still be necessary to have Semantic Topic Map API even if under the hood it is implemented in terms of the DOM - for many of the multidimensional aspects of TopicMap query and access this will not scale. Simply things like topic.getNameInScope(ScopeSet) will not be supported by the DOM. And it is this and many other methods that will actually make the model useful. A topic is a topic a DOM Node is a dom node it is not a topic. That may sound obvious but there is a difference. graham Michel wrote: Steve N. was taken aback by Michel's proposal, because it resonated so strongly with the reasonableness of Jonathan's plea. It also occurred to him that, given the right XML interchange structure for topic maps, no special API would be needed in order to use a topic map graph. The simplest DOM API would be a perfectly adequate topic map browser, if only the XML rendition of a topic map graph would be designed in such a way as to support the browsing of topic map information. _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 09:56:43 UTC