RE: [xtm-wg] RE: topicRef to reference assocs as well as topics

["Graham Moore" <gdm@empolis.co.uk>]

Bernard wrote >>

>> Is not <topicRef> resolving to an <association> element bound to provoke
>> syntactic collapsus somewhere?

It shouldn't as where ever you can use a topic you can use a association.

An association is a topic, it has all the properties of a topic, it can play
all the roles a topic can play.

The other thing is that the syntax wouldn't break in XML terms as the ref is
just CDATA. Its up to the processing application to resolve that address.
And given that the processing applications should regard the syntax as a way
to create a model, and that all subsequent processing occurrs in terms of
that model, then they should not care that it resolves to an association
because they know that assocs are topics.

>> A way I see to resolve it is to attribute to each association, not a
name,
>> but a Subject, through <associationSubject>. But since associations are
>> Topics, they do have a Subject, don't they ?
>> And to "associate associations" to make "statements about statements", is
>> there more to do than associate these subjects?

I agree that if associations had subjects, which they do conceptually, but
it is missing syntactically, that what you propose below could be made to
work.

i.e. the assoc and topic with names etc have the same identity therefor they
are both the same TOPIC and are therefor merged.

The question is, why do we want to RE-refify the association given that it
IS a topic? And why do we want to divide into two structures something that
is one? Why do we want to introduce convoluted ways of saying something when
we can say it very neatly? It just seems strange to me.

Its kind of like someone saying, 'rather than use the built in HTTP classes
in java, i@m going to write some HTTP classes from the ground up'. And the
response to this is 'Well, yes you could, but why would you want to.'.

So I say, yes we could do it like that but I havent seen any solid argument
as to why we should.

cheers graham

gdm@empolis.co.uk

>> e.g.

>> ass # 1 : "Empolis" employs "Graham"  : associationSubject  # employment
>> ass # 2 : "Graham" has competence in "Topic Maps" : associationSubject  #
>> competence
>> ass # 3 : "competence" is a contract term in "employment" : association
>> subject : # contract term

>> The third association is the way I feel "statements about statements".
>> Linking the *particular instances* ass #1 and ass #2 through a
*particular
>> association* seems to me an unuseful overload of the Map,  since "Empolis
>> employs Graham under contract terms including Graham's competence in
Topic
>> Maps" seems quite well described by the three above associations.
>> But maybe you think it does not describe it fully ...



________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet, 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. 
For further information visit:
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/337252/_/976099938/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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