RE: [xtm-wg] association : Type, Subject, Id, Reference

[Daniel Rivers-Moore <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>]

Bernard writes: "Could we have some
lightening-authoritative-back-from-Washington opinions?"

I have things to say on this. It is my belief that the DTD requires some
enhancements to allow associations and association templates to be properly
handled.

I had extensive discussions of these points with the editors in the days
leading up to Washington, but there was not time to reach resolution of all
the issues.  I hope to be able to respond to Bernard's request shortly -
when I can free up some time to write it up clearly.

Best regards

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard@universimmedia.com]
Sent: 08 December 2000 11:06
To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
Subject: [xtm-wg] association : Type, Subject, Id, Reference


<Tom>
I almost agree but I think you are really talking about the type of an
association, not its subject. Consider a (non-association) topic,
"oaktree-15". Its subject is a particular tree in my front yard - the topic
is "about" that real tree. On the other hand, the tree is an instance of
the
concept "oaktree". That is, the type of topic "oaktree-15" is the topic
"oaktree". The type is different from the subject.
</Tom>

I don't believe - at least I hope so - I make a confusion between subject
and type.
May I remark BTW a subject *must be unique*, but  a topic may belong to
*more than one class*
so we should all avoid to say/write/think "THE" type of topic. "oaktree-15"
as many types as "tree", "deciduous tree", "oaktree", "quercus robur" with
hierarchic inheritance in those classes, but also "Tom's-front-yard-tree"
or
maybe "remarkable-old-tree-in-the-County" in your tourist office map (if
this case, deserves a better name than oaktree-15 !)

But that's not really the point. Even if I don't think seeking closure is
the best way to solve it, I agree basically with Graham on some feeling of
inconsistency when seeing on one hand : "Associations are Topics" and OTOH
not being able to refer clearly  to an Association Subject or Name ( and
moreover what is the relationship between all that and association
mandatory ID ) . It's a very practical question, and the more I think about
it, the less clear it is to me. I'm somehow stuck on it in for a Sun Topic
Map - which BTW  intends to be a pedagogical tool to explain the TM
concepts via a *lightening* example, so I *have* to be very *clear* myself
about all that !

Let's take this simple example. I think we need many different examples to
get clear about it.

"Earth is a Sun's planet"

<association id="isaPlanetOf">
<!-- copy-paste from Shakespeare, but I do not understand how it makes for
an id -->
    <instanceOf>
      <topicRef xlink:href="#gravitational-interaction"/>
    </instanceOf>
    <member>
      <roleSpec>
        <topicRef xlink:href="#central-object"/>
      <roleSpec>
      <topicRef xlink:href="#Sun"/>
    </member>
    <member>
      <roleSpec>
        <topicRef xlink:href="#satellite"/>
      <roleSpec>
      <topicRef xlink:href="#Earth"/>
    </member>
  </association>

But now we want - I think that is Graham's point - to refer to "Earth is a
Sun's planet" as a statement to be referred to in an historical scope
around Copernic's work, by opposition to "Earth is the center of Universe",
and associate a given astronomer to one one those opinions, the following
questions arise :

Is this statement the same Map element than the association defined above ?
If this case, how will it be refered to ? It depends on how  we consider
the above Association Topic ?

1. as a binar relationship, i.e. the set of all (X,Y) such as "X is a Y's
planet", making consistent the ID ?
2. as the element (Earth, Sun) in this set ?
3. as something else, and what ?
In both cases, how do we identify the subject and refer to it, and how do
we name it if necessary ?

And in any case, how can I link it to the following "copernician debate" ?

<association id="disagreement">
<instanceOf>
      <topicRef xlink:href="#opinion"/>
    </instanceOf>
    <member>
      <roleSpec>
        <topicRef xlink:href="#disagrees-on"/>
      <roleSpec>
      <topicRef xlink:href="#Tycho-Brahe"/>
    </member>
    <member>
      <roleSpec>
        <topicRef xlink:href="#thesis"/>
      <roleSpec>
      <topicRef xlink:href="#heliocentrism"/>
    </member>
  </association>

I've escaped the question with "#heliocentrism" but I would like of course
to link it to the association "Earth is a Sun's planet" ...

Could we have some lightening-authoritative-back-from-Washington opinions ?

Cheers

Bernard




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 -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/337252/_/976642027/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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