Re: [xtm-wg] Re: [topicmapmail] Smalltalk Implementation of Topic Maps

[Geir Ove Grĝnmo <grove@ontopia.net>]

* Steve Pepper
| XTM does not have this syntactic shortcut, although it does have
| the other one, namely that scope is specified on the association
| element rather than the individual roles.

There's also the case where variants inherit the parameters/scope
specified on the basename or any ancestor variants.

| [Interesting issue that I've never heard raised before: Say we
| have two topics, A and B. A has a [scope] attribute on the
| topic element that specifies theme X. B has a characteristic
| Y, which might be a name or an occurrence. If A and B are merged
| due to the topic naming constraint or subject identity mechanism,
| does X get added to the scope of Y? My take on this is that it
| doesn't. Since this is a purely syntactic mechanism it should
| only have effect at the point in the processing at which the
| syntax is turned into the internal data representation. By the
| time merging takes place it should no longer be there.]

Yes, the syntax should have been processed before any merging would
happen.

Geir O.

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/