Re: [xtm-wg] XTM syntax issues:solution

[Sengor "Altıngovde" <altngovde@yahoo.com>]

--- Daniel Rivers-Moore wrote:
> How do I say that this topic and this association
> are the same thing (a
> single node in the graph), so that the name
> "marriage of John and Mary" will
> apply to the association? The mechanism of
> subjectIdentity is the requisite
> method. I'd like to put a subjectIdentity on the
> association and use it to
> point to the topic, but the DTD does not allow a
> subjectIdentity subelement
> on association. I can put a subjectIdentity on the
> topic with a topicRef to
> the association, but despite the fact that an
> association is a topic, I'm
> disallowed from doing this by the restriction that a
> topicRef can only point
> to a topic element.

I think that the following is possible with current
DTD and using subjectIndicatorRef, as follows:

<topic id="topic.marriage-of-John-and-Mary">
      <subjectIdentity>
          <subjectIndicatorRef>
             #association.marriage-of-John-and-Mary"
          </subjectIndicatorRef>
      </subjectIdentitiy>
      <baseName>
            <baseNameString>marriage of John and
Mary</baseNameString>
      </baseName>
</topic>
<association
id="association.marriage-of-John-and-Mary">
      <member>
            <roleSpec>
                  <topicRef
xlink:href="#topic.husband"/>
            </roleSpec>
            <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.John"/>
      </member>
      <member>
            <roleSpec>
                  <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.wife"/>
            </roleSpec>
            <topicRef xlink:href="#topic.Mary"/>
      </member>
</association>

Now, when this document is processed, topic node will
have the <association> mark up as its subject
indicator.  Similarly, the a-node also will have the
mark up as one of its subject indicators (by the "node
demander" rule of XTM-PM). Thus, these two will be
merged, and will have the correct "meaning".

Note that, there is an important difference btw. my
point of view and Prof. Rivers's, as follows: I claim
that the "thing" that is talked about is *the*
"association", and thus the topic's subjectIdentity
will point to this association. On the other hand, I
feel that, Prof. Rivers consider the association has
the corresponding topic as its "subject", which I feel
may not be very conformant with the conceptual point
of view.

And for the association template discussion; it is
simply great work done; at last a solution for
specifying a template....

And finally;

Nikita Ogievetsky wrote that:
> So you can address Association by topicRef.
> This is written up somewhere in the spec.
> Could not find exactly where, but remember reading 
> it. :-))

In the light of above discussion, I don't agree with
this view, as the XTM-PM report explicitly states that
a topicRef can point to only t-node's (but not
a-nodes); that is at page 33 of XTM-PM Dec 4 review:

"it is always a repotable XTM error if a <topicRef>
element references any resource that is not a topic
element that explicitly demand the existence of
t-node..."

Sincerely.
Sengor Altıngovde


  




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/337252/_/977034313/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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