Re: [xtm-wg] "subject-descriptor-ness" scoping topic

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

[Nikita Ogievetsky:]
> [Steve]  [1]
> >  Anyway, in the graph, the presence of a special
> > XTM-defined public subject -- conveying, among other things, the
> > notion of "subject-descriptor-ness" -- in the scope of an occurrence
> > indicates that the occurrence is a subject descriptor.

> [Steve]  [2]
> > Therefore, the distinction of being a subject descriptor is not
> > conferred by adding a <topicRef> to a scope; the notion of scope does
> > not apply here.  The distinction is conferred by using a <topicRef>,
> > rather than a <resourceRef>, in the <resource> that specifies the
> > information as an occurrence.
> ...
> > * To specify the subject descriptor of a topic, make the subject
> >   descriptor an occurrence of that topic.  However, instead of using
> >   <resourceRef> to point at the subject descriptor, use <topicRef>
> >   instead.
> 
> It seems contradictory to your [1] statement.
> 
> I still like "subject-descriptor-ness" scoping topic (theme).
> Otherwise you can not state that a topic occurs in another topic
> (you will have to use topicRef for this)
> without implying identity.

I don't *think* it's contradictory...  I'm trying to explain that
*both* of the following things happen in the graph when you use a
<topicRef> to refer to a resource in order to make it an occurrence
characteristic:

 (1) one of two special XTM-defined topics (one is "referent is
     subject descriptor that describes the subject", the other is
     "referent is subject descriptor that is the subject") is added to
     the scope of the occurrence, and

 (2) the occurrence is regarded as a subject descriptor, which may
     have significant impact on the graph construction process, by
     causing the various <topic>s that regard it as a subject
     descriptor (in the same sense -- see below) to merge into a
     single topic node.

We're proposing that both of these things happen, at graph
construction time, simply because you used a <topicRef> rather than a
<resourceRef> to point at the occurrence.

At a conceptual level, the notion of "subject-descriptor-ness" is
quite distinct from the notion of "occurrence-ness".  What we're
proposing here is that, as a practical matter, it makes sense to
regard any subject descriptor as an occurrence, as well as a subject
descriptor.  

We're also saying that it makes sense to use, as a subject
descriptor, something that actually provides information about what
the subject of the topic is.  (A subject descriptor could give no
information at all, and still perform its merge-controlling function:
if two <topic>s regard the same information object as their common
subject descriptor (in the same sense -- "describesSubject" or
"isSubject"), then the two <topic>s will be merged into a single topic
node at graph construction time.)

The alternative is to divorce the idea of "subject binding point" from
the idea of "subject description".  From an information interchange
perspective, the idea of using, as a subject binding point, something
that does not somehow describe the subject, makes no sense to me.  It
would lead us to a place where an address is extremely significant, but
nothing has to exist at the address, and the address doesn't even have
to make any sense.  I personally would see such an outcome as
detrimental to the accomplishment of the mission of topic maps, not to
mention disastrously confusing for anyone who has common sense.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

405 Flagler Court
Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/337252/_/973704205/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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