Can somebody please explain (or point me to a reference) as to what the working
group intends to do with the Topic Naming Constraint in the next version of the
specification (XTM1.1).
I'm just a little freaked out by the statement on the Omnigator "merge" page
that this "draconian" constraint would be done away with.
I'm assuming that the working group will continue to recognize the validity of
this statement I found (via google) in the working group list (but want to be
reassured that it is)...
> I see the usefulness of being able to do automatic namespace-based
> merges. This is extremely useful, but unfortunately the problem is
> that people (myself included) believe that base names are intended for
> labelling purposes, not for identification.
I am seriously hoping that, by placing certain "scopes" on Company ticker
symbols I will be able to merge in data from multiple data sources so all data
on the subject of a single company is accessible from one place (er Topic).
Personally, what would suit me just fine is if merging on basenames in the
unconstrained scope was not automatic, but that in defined scopes, the
basenames would merge. mmmm I suppose we strike here the problem with exact
definition of 'scope' (whether to 'include' or 'exclude' scopes that share only
one topic amongst many).
Arghh.. Woah !
OK So hopefully greater minds than I are working this out.
But hopefully someone can let me know that name space merging (via basenames in
certain scopes) will continue to be available in the next version of the XTM
spec as I really need it.
Than you and goodnight.
Miles Thompson
|
