Re: [xtm-wg] Nikita's comments

["Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>]

Steve, thanks for your response
Hope you have time to read mine.

My proposals intend to fix the gap
between conceptual model and syntax.
(same as changing member players from + to *)
1)
Conceptual model requires roleSpec on a assoc.member.
In DTD it is optional.
Problem can be fixed if we say that

if roleSpec is omitted then generic
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#rolespec
is assumed.

3)
Same thing
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#addressable
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#non-addressable
are required in order to justify <instanceOf> content model
(i.e. make a bridge between it and the fact that
it is a shortcut for an association)
My original posting explains why.

In my opinion, if we want conformance between conceptual model
and syntax, these PSI-s are important and should belong to the core.

Thanks,

Nikita.

-------------------------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky                  Cogitech Inc
XML/XSLT/XLink/TopicMaps Consultant
nogievet@cogx.com   --   (917) 406-8734
http://www.cogx.com     Cogito Ergo XML

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
To: <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:12 AM
Subject: [xtm-wg] Nikita's comments


> Some responses to Nikita's comments:
>
> At 01:55 07/02/01 -0500, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
> >1)
> >2.3.2
> >add default association member to Mandatory Published Subject Indicators
> >
> >member: The core concept of association member; the generic role played
by a
> >member in an association unless otherwise specified.
>
><http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#rolespec>http://www.topicmaps.or
g/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#rolespec
> >
> >This is important because <roleSpec> is optional.
>
> We did have a PSI in there for "role" at one time, but we took it
> out to reflect the fact that there is no longer any <instanceOf>
> and therefore no longer any need for a "default class" (as there
> is with topic, occurrence, and association.
>
> I think this can be argued both ways, and I'm not sure it makes
> a big difference in the here and now. Obviously, "role" will be
> one of the candidates for any extension to the Core PSIs (as
> will other topic map constructs like "topic name").
>
> >2)
> >3.8.3
> ><roleSpec> element needs a little more description. Currently it is
rather
> >unspecified compared to other elements.
> >Particularly it would be worth to mention why we do not use <instanceOf>
> >here.
> >I think it will be a very common question that people will ask.
>
> It's hard to know what more to say, without duplicating what's in
> the text under the "Content model" heading immediately after. This,
> together with the examples, make the thing clear enough in our
> opinion.
>
> >3)
> >3.4.1 and 3.8.3
> ><instanceOf> and <roleSpec> elements are missing <resourceRef> from their
> >children content
> >is it because resource can not be instantiated?
> >In any case it breaks consistency with the conceptual model (which we all
> >worry about :-))
> >because these elements are modeled as shortcuts to "instance-of"
> >associations and as such should
> >mirror <member> content.
>
> This reflects an insight (and decision) from Dallas: That resources
> by their very nature, cannot possibly be classes of things.
>
> >Alternatively, I propose to add 2 mandatory public subjects:
> >(I would rather prefer this)
> >
> >2.3.2
> >-
> >the generic class of all topics whose subject is a resource.
>
><http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#addressable>http://www.topicmaps
.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#addressable
> >-
> >the generic class of all topics whose subject is not addressable (is
> >indicated by a set of resources ).
>
><http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#non-addressable>http://www.topic
maps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#non-addressable
> >(sorry, could not think of better naming at this late hour)
> >
> >Instances of #non-addressable topics do not have <resourceRef> in
> ><subjectIndicator> content.
> >
> >Then Association templates in the future can be used to allow only
> >instances of #non-addressable topics as "instanceOf" association members
> >
> >These PSI may also be useful when modeling <occurrence>.
>
> Again, these belong in an extension to TM.Org's published subjects,
> not in the core.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Steve Pepper, Chief Technology Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
> Ontopia AS, Maridalsveien 99B, N-0461 Oslo, Norway.
> http://www.ontopia.net/  phone: +47-22805465  GSM: +47-90827246
>
>



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981652355/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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