Re: [geolang-comment] First proposals for ISO 639 and 3166 available

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Murray Altheim
| 
| "710" is not an information resource relevant to the country South
| Africa, 

I don't see how you can dispute that. Name strings are information
resources, and they are clearly relevant to the things the name.  So
names are a specialization of occurrences.

| it is a coded name for that country, the context (or scope) of that
| name being within the set of codes as published by the UN.

What's your definition of 'name', then?
 
| I think the XTM specification is starting to be read like the bible,
| wherein one can seemingly prove anything. 

True, and that's why we are replacing it.

| In this instance it should be remembered that occurrences in the
| topic map paradigm are meant to be out in the world, not in the
| map. Names of topics reside in the map, and "710" is an alternate
| name for "South Africa", not an occurrence of a resource about South
| Africa. If we begin populating our topic maps' occurrences with
| things that should be in the map, where will the "real" occurrences
| live? The clean separation between map and territory mapped is lost.

Sure, but who says topic maps are about that separation? As far as I
know, only you. Personally I don't agree that that is a consideration
in this case.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >