Bug #2251

Handling of the default name type

Added by Anonymous over 9 years ago. Updated about 9 years ago.

Status:Closed Start date:2010-03-02
Priority:Normal Due date:
Assignee:Lars Marius Garshol % Done:

0%

Category:-
Target version:-

Description

Hi,

the current draft says: any topic name item n whose [type] property contains a topic item t where t is not an instance of tmcl:name-type is invalid.
My question is, is a name which type is the default name type as well invalid?

Regards,
Christian

History

Updated by Lars Marius Garshol over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Assigned
  • Assignee set to Lars Marius Garshol

is a name which type is the default name type as well invalid?

What the draft says is that unless you've declared tm:topic-name to be of type tmcl:name-type then yes. If you do make it an instance of tmcl:name-type then no.

The same goes for the tm:supertype-subtype association type, and so on.

We could include these declarations in some magical meta-schema and say that implementations must act as though this were merged with the topic map to be validated. Whether we should I don't really know.

Updated by Hannes Niederhausen over 9 years ago

We could include these declarations in some magical meta-schema and say that implementations must act as though this were merged with the topic map to be validated. Whether we should I don't really know.

I would prefer this declaration, or at least let the validator assume they were made. Its a bit odd for my taste to declare some additional typing for the types specified in the TMDM.

Updated by Lars Marius Garshol over 9 years ago

Hannes Niederhausen schrieb:

I would prefer this declaration, [...]

I'm not sure what I think myself, to be honest. Let's discuss this in Stockholm, and we can see.

Updated by Lars Marius Garshol about 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Assigned to Closed

This has now been included in the specification.

Also available in: Atom PDF