search

kozchris / tmapix

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/tmapix
0 stars 0 forks source link

Handling non default name type names in LTM export #32

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Sorry if this was already discussed, but a quick search didn't give me a hint.

LTM has no support for typed names.
Currently the LTMWriter exports only names of the default type and writes a 
comment about non default name typed ones.
So exporting a Topic Map to LTM, that uses typed names, currently results in an 
information loss.

My suggestion is to either provide a (optional) switch to export those names 
with the default name type (and perhaps note their type in a comment), or at 
least to note the type within the written comment, not only the Id.
This way a (non standard conform!!) LTMReader could try to reassemble  the 
missing typed names.
Another option would be the generation of special occurrences for those names, 
but this is artificial and semantically clearly incorrect.

The first choice should also be reflected by additions to the CXTM testsuite, I 
guess.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by darkwing...@googlemail.com on 20 Sep 2010 at 9:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
My unimportant opinion:
Why don't you use CTM if you need a human friendly, textual output?

Regarding the proposal to create non-standard conform reader: It is very 
unlikely that Ontopia or the MIO project (which is used by TMAPIX) will put any 
effort into a LTM deserializer which supports the name type in comments since 
LTM is to be replaced with CTM.

btw, you loose a lot of more information if you use LTM as serialization 
format, i.e. the datatype of the occurrences iff the datatype is not xsd:anyURI 
or xsd:string. And LTM supports just one subject locator, one datatype for 
variants etc.

To cut the long story short: Use CTM :)

Original comment by lars.he...@gmail.com on 20 Sep 2010 at 1:57

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Short: +1

Long:
You got me wrong: Neither did I propose the creation of a non standard 
_reader_, nor did I use LTM for my projects. 
This was just something I noticed while summing up some Topic Map formats. :-)

Perhaps it would be feasonable to (slowly) deprecate export (not import) of LTM 
so people are more pushed towards using CTM ...

So I guess you may close this as "rejected"? ;-)

Original comment by darkwing...@googlemail.com on 20 Sep 2010 at 2:10