Re: [xtm-wg] XTM-CMS: Topic associations

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| It does not really, since there is currently no way of saying "all
| instances of the is-married-to' association must have exactly one
| 'husband' anchor role and one 'wife' anchor role".

* Michel Biezunski
| 
| This is a different issue. 

Definitely!  It's just that that's what I understood Dale to mean when
he wrote this:

* Dale Hunscher
|
| 1. A definition of the association *class* (or template might be a
| better word) such that it has the required anchor roles "husband"
| and "wife"; possibly each could allow multiple instances to account
| for polygamy and polyandry.


* Michel Biezunski
| 
| In the ISO standard, you can constrain your own topic map
| architecture by declaring your own DTD. But the mechanism enforcing
| constraints and rules on the base of the DTD structure (or even XML
| schemas) is probably unsufficient for what topic maps need to
| represent. 

I agree.
 
* Michel Biezunski
|
| The difference is that in the class case, the topic representing the
| class is automatically generated within the topic map,

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| What do you mean by this?
 
* Michel Biezunski
|
| When you say:
| <assoc type="marriage" ...>
| ...
| you must have in the same topic map another topic whose id is
| marriage, even if it has no occurrence, but just a name.

Agreed.  However, that doesn't mean that this topic is automatically
generated, and that was the part of your statement that made me
wonder.  What did you really mean by that?

--Lars M.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Tellme Sports. Tellme Stocks. Tellme News. Just Tellme.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9530/4/_/337252/_/971107098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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