RE: [xtm-wg] XTM-ISS Important XLink difference in DTDs

["Kal Ahmed" <kal@ontopia.net>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
YOU ARE NOT ALONE.  CONNECT WITH PEOPLE IN YOUR INDUSTRY
http://click.egroups.com/1/9275/4/_/337252/_/969875404/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Graham Moore wrote:

> Just some thoughts regarding
>
> The concept of NameServer,
>
> <!-- [Michel]: This is a shortcircuit for something we
>      already provide in a more powerful way. Since
>      everything in a topic map is a de facto a topic (an
>      association can be seen as a topic occurrence),
>      everything can be named using the very same constructs
>      that we already have, with full power (several names,
>      which can be scoped, etc., and with display names, sort
>      names, etc.)  Applications and user interfaces have
>      plenty of stuff to play with already. I propose to
>      stick with what we have in the ISO spec, i.e. no names
>      except for topics.-->
>
> I think that it is provided for in an ambiguous and inconsistent
> fashion in
> the standard.
>
> The standard basically confuses typing with naming,
>
> 	if I have <occrl occrole="picture of graham" href="... />
>
> 	it says that this is the name or title
>
> 	if I have <occrl type="jpeg" href=".... />
>
> 	then the name is jpeg and this occ is also an instance of jpeg
>
> 	What I want to express clearly is that I have an occurrence
> with a name
> 'picture of graham' of type jpeg.
>
> 	<occrl type="jpeg" nameservice="picture of graham' href ... />
>

Perhaps this example is too simplified, but it would seem to me that using
the <occurs> -type- attribute to declare the type of the occurrence is
abusing ISO13250. The -type- attribute should reference a topic which
characterises the occurrence role. That typing is therefore dependant on the
topic that the occurrence is a member of. So if the 'parent' topic is
'Graham' then 'portrait' would seem a reasonable occurrence role. If the
topic was 'Portraits of Graham' then an argument could be made for 'jpeg' as
an occurrence role, but I think 'Graduation Picture' would be more
informative. The format of an occurrence, or indeed any other occurrence
meta data can be expressed with facets.
>
> RDF has a very powerful mechanism for reified statements that is enabled
> through the simplicity of the model. Topic maps self
> inconsistency prevents
> us from 'doing' reified stataments in an sensible and easy way.
> In order to
> define a reified statment it is necessary to create a topic for the
> association. This is a hack becuase the structures do not support closure.
>
> I don't think that the discussions needs to go onto inference
> rules there is
> a more fundamental mis balance. And if we are to  achieve synergy with RDF
> which we will do. Then this is a very important point. My guess
> is that the
> conceptual model will show a structure of this form in order to
> achieve both
> an organic model and synergy with RDF.
>

Perhaps the synergy with RDF will come from using RDF for doing things that
topic maps are not so good at and using topic maps for doing the things that
RDF is not so good at. RDF is certainly good for asserting meta-data about a
resource.

Cheers,

Kal


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

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