Re: [xtm-wg] The Topic Naming Constraint

[Geir Ove Grønmo <grove@ontopia.net>]

* Steven R. Newcomb
| Would you be happier if we re-named the <baseNameString> element type
| to <string-for-string-based-topic-merging-and-for-no-other-purpose>?
| If we had not already decided on the interchange syntax for XTM, I
| could live with that.  (You'll have to forgive me if I just so happen
| to put the names of my topics in
| <string-for-string-based-topic-merging-and-for-no-other-purpose>
| elements.)

I'd like to have the
<string-for-string-based-topic-merging-and-for-no-other-purpose> element 
type present, but currently it does not exist. The element type could
e.g. be called <subjectIdentitifier>.

| If you want to do away with the topic naming constraint, please don't
| confuse what's left with the topic map paradigm, and don't imagine
| that what's left will allow topics to be addressed by their names.

I believe that the topic naming constraint doesn't make sense as it
currently stands. It shouldn't apply to the <baseName> elements at all,
but rather to something like the proposed <subjectIdentifier> element
type. (Note that I'm not entirely convinced that the <subjectIdentifier>
element type should be scoped (If it should, why isn't <subjectIdentity>
scoped?). I'm pretty sure that it doesn't make sense for it to have
variants.)

| > Applications need to be able to display labels for topics. The
| > obvious way to do this is to use names.
| 
| Not true.  A name is useful for addressing.  
| A label is not useful for addressing; it is merely a display
| convenience.  

I'm not entirely sure that I agree. There's nothing that prevents labels
from being used for addressing (or identification). My point is that it
should be up to the author(s) to decide what should be labels and what
should be identifiers.

| Contrary to what you seem to believe, labels should not always also be
| names.

This I agree with. A [variant] picture referenced by <variant> is not a
name (but it can still be used for identification).

| > Occurrences are usually out of the
| > question, since _generic_ applications wouldn't be able to know when
| > to use a basename and when to display occurrences.
| 
| Not true.  The processing of XTM <topicMap> elements is exactly what
| the XTM Spec says it is, no more and no less.  If the XTM Spec defines
| a published subject that is "label", then that's all that's necessary.
| If an occurrence type is "label" (or any other XTM-defined occurrence
| type), generic applications will be required to know what that means,
| and to act accordingly.  A label is a kind of occurrence, no more and
| no less.

AFAIK the XTM specification doesn't define a PSI for labelling purposes.

All the best,
Geir O.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/