Re: [xtm-wg] Re: Terminology and Readability

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

At 09:21 AM 10/10/00, Martin wrote:

>The correct reading of associations needs to take into account the asscoiated topics. Therefore you need something along with the stiucture "Topic X (the location of the assocrl) undertook the role of TopicY (the type of the assocrl) in TopicX (the type of the assoc) ." where
>
>So,
>The Beatles undertook the role of Band in at-played-instrument-in.
>Lennon & McCartney under took the role of Vocalist in at-played-instrument-in
>
>(These examples suggest that the ID for the topic used to define the association does not correctly express its intent. My rule of thumb is that the "association type" should map to an "event type". So I would have "performance" as the association type.)

Against which logic I might *like* to write

<assoc type="married">
    <husband>george</husband>
    <wife>Matilda</wife>
</assoc>
At least this tells the story, even if it does disallow a DTD?

When I replace george (an id value) with baa186abaa, an auto-generated
id value, even this gets ridiculous - and distinctly agin
the precepts of XML ala Tim Bray.

Regards 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/1/9335/4/_/337252/_/971199236/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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