RE: [xtm-wg] XTM-CMS: FW: Topic associations

[Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>]

At 03:18 PM 10/9/00, you wrote:
>I still have a major concern about XTM that I hope is being addressed in the
>WG, which has to do with associations being first-class objects.
>
>Consider this example:
>
>   <assoc  scope="st-family" type="is-married-to">
>    <assocrl anchrole="husband">John Fitzgerald Kennedy</assocrl>
>    <assocrl anchrole="wife">Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy</assocrl>
>   </assoc>
>
>The association type, a topic, has the id is-married-to. As far as I can
>see, "is-married-to" refers to a topic that is about the *class* (the
>generalized type) of this association, which topic might be better named
>"marriage". But what I need is two things I am not yet seeing in the
>discussion, though there are hints they are being discussed elsewhere:
>
>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.
>
>2. A way of specifying the topic of the *instance* of an association of this
>type; e.g., the marriage of Jack and Jackie above is a topic unto itself,
>independent of either person (as the tabloids of the 60's so vividly, and
>vapidly, demonstrated).


I also think the semantics of this area very sloppy.
If it can't be stated in English from the syntax, how 
might a machine be programmed to interpret?

Assocless, DaveP







-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! 
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR with NO annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9333/4/_/337252/_/971112440/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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