RE: [xtm-wg] [xtm-wg/xtm-iss/xtm-cms] Regarding associations as t opics

["Wrightson, Ann" <Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk>]

Sorry Nikita, I'm not ignoring your example, but I have no time to respond
today. I'm sure we'll be talking this through at teh week-end.

Cheers

Ann W.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikita Ogievetsky [mailto:nogievet@cogx.com]
> Sent: 12 October 2000 12:34
> To: xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] [xtm-wg/xtm-iss/xtm-cms] Regarding 
> associations as
> t opics
> 
> 
> Ann, you wrote:
> > There is a very specific formal reason why 
> topic-associations have to be
> > topics (possibly under some view of the topic map) - which 
> I have made to
> > CMS - and I was glad to see Matthew West, with his wider 
> experience than
> > mine in modelling real & seriously complex information 
> domains, agreeing
> at
> > once from a modelling point of view. The relevant mails are 
> copied below.
> 
> Lets take an example of
> a marriage A to B again.
> What do we know about it?
> It occurred in City X, Country Z, - occurrence
> Was registered in file 1234567, - occurrence
> It refers to association between A and B, - occurrence
> (it occurred in marriage A to B)
> 
> I would love to here a use case from CMS where
> the above speculation does not work.
> 
> One basic feature of association prevents it from
> becoming a topic on its own:
> Associations occur within a scope.
> 
> > I am concerned that an apparent implicit requirement from 
> some members
> that
> > topic-mapping must make immediate sense in English, may be 
> scuppering
> > important formal properties for interrelating (not 
> necessarily merging)
> > topic maps & topic maps, & also for interrelating topic 
> maps and other
> > structured information domains.
> 
> I think it is the opposite!
> I value "scopability" of association higher then its "topicability".
> Especially because "topicability" can be easily solved:
> 
> To the four solutions suggested in prior e-mails
> (by Michel Biezunski, Steve Pepper, Geir Ove Grønmo and 
> Nikita Ogievetsky)
> 1)Explicitly regarding associations as topics
> 2)Adding required attribute "id" to associations
> 3)Adding attribute "topic" to associations
> 4)Using "singleton" topic for associations type
> 
> I want to propose yet another one:
> 
> 5)Add association to the optional topic content.
> In other words instead of using "id"-s or "type"-s
> to link associations to topics, physically (or syntactically :-))
> bring association link as another child content of
> topic link element (along with "topname" and "occurs")
> Semantically it is the same as
> treating association as topic occurrence,
> but syntax may seam friendlier for you?
> 
> Something like:
> 
> <topic id="a" types="marriage">
>   <topname>...</topname>
>   <occurrs>
>     <occurrl type="location" href="cityZ countryX"/>
>     <occurrl type="registered" href="file#1234567@cityZregCenter"/>
>   </occurrs>
>   <assocs>
>     <assoc>
>         <assocrl type="she" href="A.B."/>
>         <assocrl type="he" href="D.C."/>
>     </assoc>
>   </assocs>
> </topic>
> 
> Important:
> One topic link in this approach can contain several 
> association links in
> different scopes.
> 
> 
> Note that this is just another alternative to
> solutions 2),3),4)
> All proposed solutions can be used in order to
> > saying something like:
> > For each link of type X in model A make a link of type Y in 
> model B, or a
> > link of type X in model A is equivalent to a link of type Y 
> in model B.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nikita.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor 
> -------------------------~-~>
> Get FREE long-distance phone calls on Tellme!
> Click here for the scoop:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9531/4/_/337252/_/971350381/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Your family still won't know what you do.  At least they'll know where.
The resources, brainpower & breadth of opportunities at Microsoft are
unmatched. The only question is are you ready for that kind of impact?
http://click.egroups.com/1/9223/4/_/337252/_/971352951/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com