[xtm-wg] Comments on XTM Spec 1.0

[Robert Barta <rho@bigpond.net.au>]

Hi,

Maybe I missed that in this forum, but 

   http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/xtm1-20001204.html#syn-scope

states that

   <quote>
   ....The union of these elements' subject identity points specifies
the context 
   in which the assignment of the corresponding topic characteristic is
considered 
   to be valid. 
   </quote>

So - for example - in

  <topic id="play-hamlet">
    <baseName>
      <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#plays"/></scope>
      <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#shortname"/></scope>
      <baseNameString>Hamlet</baseNameString>
    </baseName>
    <baseName>
      <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#plays"/></scope>
      <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#fullname"/></scope>
      <baseNameString>The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmark</baseNameString>
    </baseName>
    ...
  </topic>

does now 'Hamlet' be a valid characteristic whenever the active (user)
scope is 

  (a) #plays AND #shortname

or

  (b) plays OR #shortname

? Given that you can have any number of alternative <baseName> sections,
wouldn't
it be more obvious not to use the 'union' but the 'intersection' above?
This would
be compatible with that merging rules.

Either way, having now a boolean expression somehow implicitly defining
a semantics
is an indication that there is somewhere a flaw.

In our implementation here, we now choose to constrain the scope to be
_a single 
topic_, but will lateron allow in some sort of algebraic expression to
define this 
scoping topic. At least, that's the plan...:-)

Any comments appreciated.

\rho

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

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