Hey Murray,
Hmm Why is this really?
I understand that XTM is just a serialization format for the model,
being Topic Maps. And that XTM doesn't have any "valid meaning" until
its loaded into a TM Application. However,
what I don't understand is where precisely things would start to go
wrong with an approach that adds/removes/updates specific XTM fragments
by ID using Xupdate.
You could tell the XTM application to 'mergemap' the entire tree again,
at the end of each update, thus merging topics if that were necessary ?
Or if this would not work, how different would an XTM specific version
of Xupdate have to be?
Miles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Altheim
> [mailto:m.altheim-aXtgmyahLfa1Qrn1Bg8BZw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:01 AM
> To: Miles Thompson
> Cc: algermissen; topicmapmail
> Subject: Re: [topicmapmail] Web Services
>
> Miles Thompson wrote:
> > Once you start going down this path one really wants to check if the
> > Xupdate specification slash language would be appropriate for your
> > needs. Really the same idea, ie POSTing fragments of XML, I guess.
No ?
> >
> > Also the "WebFolders / webDav' spec comes to mind.
>
> Miles,
>
> Actually, no. XTM documents aren't the same as XML documents,
> i.e., they only have valid meaning in the framework of a Topic
> Map application, where all of the merging rules, etc. come to
> play. XUpdate might make some sense to look at as a model from
> which to develop a similar API for Topic Maps, but on its own
> it couldn't be reliably used to modify an XTM document.
>
> Murray
>
> ......................................................................
> Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
> Knowledge Media Institute
> The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
>
> [...] all matters of authority and responsibility are ultimately
> matters of social practice, and never matters of ontology (that
> is, never just a matter of how things in fact are in the nonhuman
> world). [...] just as we should not look to ground our moral
> judgments in the nonhuman authority of a god, so we should not
> look to ground our empirical judgments in the nonhuman authority
> of an external world. -- Robert Brandom
> http://www.tilgher.it/brandom.html
|
