RE: [xtm-wg] [xtm-iss] identity VS basename

["Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service!  Click here for your free trial of @Backup.  
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online.  Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/4/_/337252/_/967732477/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

[Nikita:]
 1)
> Another cookbook on the subject of Topic Maps merging
> with examples and how-to-s .
> Especially elaborate on roles of identity and basename.
> This is important because Topic Maps are in fact all about merge-bility.

I agree about the importance. I wonder about the deadline. Will we really
have time to do it before Dec 2? I would feel more comfortable about doing
such a thing when we'll have some accumulated topic maps to play with.

> 2)
> Determine what should be the default behavior of an XTM engine
> when it encounters two topic links with:
>
> same identity attributes / different base names in the same scope
> different identity attributes / same base names in the same scope
> no identity and no names / no identity and no names
> same base names in the scope "A"/ different base names in scope "B"

Yes for all. This is also an item for the CMS.

> Can we consider base name as a special case identity?
> Something like: identity="tm://[scope]:[basename]" ?

Can you be more precise on this question. I think I understand
what you mean, but I am not absolutely sure, so it would help if
you can be more specific.

> In fact this will mean that a topic in XTM world can have multiple
> identities
> (in different scopes)

I agree, this is something we should have.

> And it does make sense. For example:
>
> I (a topic)
> have SSN (my identity in the scope of US )
> and Russian passport number (my identity in the scope of Russia)
> and Permesso di soggiorno  (my identity in the scope of Italy)
>
> Actually, there are known cases of
> Foreign citizens having multiple SSN.
> IRS could have detected the fraud by
> merging Topic Maps of two countries!!!
> Some use-case isn't it?

> 2)
> Another issue connected to this one is
> the semantics and sintax of base-, sort-, disp- names in the XTM.
> It was brought up during the Montreal meeting.

This is also an issue to be discussed in the light of the model
done by the CM subgroup. I personally think that the scope should
be removed from the topic level, and that there should be two distinct
scopes: the semantic scope should go for topname, and the application
scope should go to dispname, sortname. I am not sure if basename should have
its own scope.
What I call semantic scope is for example the name of a plant in Latin and
the
common name. What I call application scope is the name displayed on paper
as opposed to the name displayed on a computer screen. Both scopes should be
active together (scientific name of the plant displayed on a computer
screen).

Michel
==========================================
Michel Biezunski, InfoLoom, Inc.
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Email: mb@infoloom.com  Web: www.infoloom.com
==========================================



Michel
==========================================
Michel Biezunski, InfoLoom, Inc.
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Email: mb@infoloom.com  Web: www.infoloom.com
==========================================


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

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