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

["ann.wrightson" <ann.wrightson@leedsalumni.org.uk>]

Surely the differences in syntax (see quote below from SRN) don't
necessarily amount to such deep differences? There is so much that you can't
show in syntax (which can only rely on literal tokens) .... the relationship
between these concepts has received a lot of attention in the modelling
group. IMO it is quite possible for these concepts to be
distinct-yet-related, and for the distinction only to show in the syntax,
whereas an underlying model can show the relatedness too, and also the
nature of the relationship.

Ann W.

SRN:
We are implicitly taking some
philosophical positions with this design:

* That subjects (and their proxies, topic nodes) are *not* resources,
  and therefore cannot be regarded as occurrences.

* That relationships between subjects (topic nodes) are fundamentally
  different from the relationships between subjects and their
  occurrences.  The proposed syntax model requires that relationships
  between subjects be expressed via <association>s, and relationships
  between subjects and occurrences be expressed via <occurrence>s.




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/337252/_/973769286/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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