[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] TAO vs. ERA
[Bernard Vatant] > Robert > > > For associations I can choose a scope to constrain its validity, > > for instanceOf I can not. In other words, the scope of an instanceOf > > is then the unconstrained-scope? Do I interpret something into the > > standard which is not here? > > I think you are right. There is no <scope> in <instanceOf>, which means when you > declare an instantiation this way, it's an "absolute" one. If you want to scope > it, you have to create explicit class role and instance role. IMO this is an > inconsistency in the spec, since <instanceOf> is a shortcut for an association, > and hence should be "scopable". > The whole situation can get out of hand rapidly. Take an instanceOf that refers to a topic. The various names of that topic could in theory have their own scopes. Does that mean that the original thing is NOT an instanceOf when the referenced topic (has a name characteristic that) is out of scope? Extending this line of nasty inquiry, the scope topics themselves (their characteristics, of course) could be out of scope. Do they then apply or not? I don't think it is useful to use scopes with topics when they are applied as scopes or instanceOfs. Does anyone have any examples that show the opposite here? Cheers, Tom P
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC