[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] XTM syntax issues:solution
--- Daniel Rivers-Moore wrote: > How do I say that this topic and this association > are the same thing (a > single node in the graph), so that the name > "marriage of John and Mary" will > apply to the association? The mechanism of > subjectIdentity is the requisite > method. I'd like to put a subjectIdentity on the > association and use it to > point to the topic, but the DTD does not allow a > subjectIdentity subelement > on association. I can put a subjectIdentity on the > topic with a topicRef to > the association, but despite the fact that an > association is a topic, I'm > disallowed from doing this by the restriction that a > topicRef can only point > to a topic element. I think that the following is possible with current DTD and using subjectIndicatorRef, as follows: <topic id="topic.marriage-of-John-and-Mary"> <subjectIdentity> <subjectIndicatorRef> #association.marriage-of-John-and-Mary" </subjectIndicatorRef> </subjectIdentitiy> <baseName> <baseNameString>marriage of John and Mary</baseNameString> </baseName> </topic> <association id="association.marriage-of-John-and-Mary"> <member> <roleSpec> <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.husband"/> </roleSpec> <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.John"/> </member> <member> <roleSpec> <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.wife"/> </roleSpec> <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.Mary"/> </member> </association> Now, when this document is processed, topic node will have the <association> mark up as its subject indicator. Similarly, the a-node also will have the mark up as one of its subject indicators (by the "node demander" rule of XTM-PM). Thus, these two will be merged, and will have the correct "meaning". Note that, there is an important difference btw. my point of view and Prof. Rivers's, as follows: I claim that the "thing" that is talked about is *the* "association", and thus the topic's subjectIdentity will point to this association. On the other hand, I feel that, Prof. Rivers consider the association has the corresponding topic as its "subject", which I feel may not be very conformant with the conceptual point of view. And for the association template discussion; it is simply great work done; at last a solution for specifying a template.... And finally; Nikita Ogievetsky wrote that: > So you can address Association by topicRef. > This is written up somewhere in the spec. > Could not find exactly where, but remember reading > it. :-)) In the light of above discussion, I don't agree with this view, as the XTM-PM report explicitly states that a topicRef can point to only t-node's (but not a-nodes); that is at page 33 of XTM-PM Dec 4 review: "it is always a repotable XTM error if a <topicRef> element references any resource that is not a topic element that explicitly demand the existence of t-node..." Sincerely. Sengor Altıngovde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.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/_/977034313/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC