Bug #2251
Handling of the default name type
| Status: | Closed | Beginn: | 2010-03-02 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priorität: | Normal | Abgabedatum: | ||
| Zugewiesen an: |  Lars Marius Garshol |
% erledigt: | 0% |
|
| Kategorie: | - | |||
| Zielversion: | - |
Beschreibung
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
Historie
Von Lars Marius Garshol vor mehr als 8 Jahren aktualisiert
- Status wurde von New zu Assigned geändert
- Zugewiesen an wurde auf Lars Marius Garshol gesetzt
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.
Von Hannes Niederhausen vor mehr als 8 Jahren aktualisiert
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.
Von Lars Marius Garshol vor mehr als 8 Jahren aktualisiert
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.
Von Lars Marius Garshol vor mehr als 8 Jahren aktualisiert
- Status wurde von Assigned zu Closed geändert
This has now been included in the specification.
Topic Maps Lab