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

["Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/4/_/337252/_/967783558/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Michel: 
>Nikita:
>> 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. 
>> 2) 
>> Another issue connected to this one is 
>> the semantics and syntax 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, 

You mean remove scope from topic link (in the syntax m.)
because it is confusing? 
I agree.
(topic does not have scope in the current conceptual model) 

>  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).

I agree.  This is very interesting.

With regards to basename I wonder whether there is an
overlapping with identity? 

To emphasize it I will repeat the thought that
identity should have scope. (thus should be an element like 
occurrence or name)
Examples: 
mentioned earlier my SSN and passport #, both being my identifiers.
(my SSN and passport are my identities, not names!)
Or we may discover, when merging topic maps, that 2 topic links 
having different identities in different scopes are in fact the same 
topic.
Thus, I think there is a lot of clashing between identity and 
basename that has to be addressed.
Please correct me I am missing something.

Another example of the different identities in different scopes 
pointing to the same topic 
is when two people are arguing about the same thing. 
Consensus is reached when topic maps are merged.
A great use case again!

>From this point of view I believe it would be an interesting project
for our group to build (syntactically) Topic Map of Topic Map
and Topic Map of RDF, and then merge... !
(can we add it to miscellanies deliverables?)
This would be great to have in December !

Nikita.





-------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky
http://www.cogx.com
nogievet@cogx.com
(917)406-8734
Consultant in XML/XSLT/Xlink/TopicMaps 



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

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