Re: [Tm4j-developers] Branching TM4J

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Xuân,

[...]
>> IMO very difficult if you want to support TMDM.
>>   
> My current idea is to support a superset of TMDM and the current TM4J as
> laid out in
> http://tm4j.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/tm4j/tm4j/docs/TMDM-support.html?revision=1.1
> .

One comment against the doc:

[...]
- topic type (removed in TMDM, replaced by a
  http://psi.topicmaps.org/iso13250/model/type-instance association)

In XTM 1.0 the type-instance (resp. class-instance) relationship is
also modelled by an association. Cf.
<http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/index.html#desc-class-instance>. TMDM
does not remove or add something (the PSIs and terminology has been
changed, though).

The topic type was/is used as simplification of a
type-instance association (in the unconstrained scope). IMO it is
useful from the API-user perspective.



TMAPI <http://www.tmapi.org/> is not perfect and not aligned to the
latest TMDM, but IMO it would be useful to keep an eye on the API or
use the lib and create your own interfaces ontop of it, i.e.

    public interface Occurrence extends org.tmapi.core.Occurrence {

           public void setValue(String value, Locator datatype);

           [...]
    }

You would support TMAPI natively but your implementation would be
TMAPI-independent. If the project dies, you can still use your
interfaces. The only problem I see is the Topic#getReified() method,
which returns a Set. But an additional Topic#getReifiedObject() or
something like that should solve it.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://www.semagia.com