Re: [xtm-wg] Questions on topic maps

["H. Holger Rath" <hhr@step.de>]

Steve Pepper wrote:
> At 11:15 23.07.2001 +0200, H. Holger Rath wrote:
> >> [1] <topic scope="biology"><name>dysfunction</name> ... </topic>
> >>
> >> This is different from [2].
> >>
> >> [2] <topic><name scope="biology">dysfunction</name> ... </topic>
> >>
> >> Given some UI and accessing this topic map from outside the scope "biology",
> >> topic2 would show up with no characteristics, whereas topic1 would be
> >> invisible and inaccessible.  I feel it is important to allow this
> >> distinction.
> >
> >I totally agree. And this is not only a UI issue. It is also an issue how
> >the concepts work together on the semantic level.
> 
> Holger, I want to be clear about what it is you "totally agree" with.
> 
> I assume you are agreeing with the *requirement* Ivan has to be able
> distinguish between a topic that "happens to have" no characteristics
> in a certain scope, and a topic that "cannot have" characteristics in
> a certain scope.

I agreed (and still agree) with the importance of the requirement. 

> I hope you also agree with me that Ivan's [1] and [2] are identical
> according to 13250 (at least if you ignore the "...").

Yes, according to ISO 13250 they are identical.
 
> >The typical answer to the question Ivan raised is "assign the same scope
> >to all the characteristics of a topic" but this *is not* the same as as
> >saying "this concept (reified by a topic) is only valid in a certain scope"
> >and the latter cannot be expressed in TM world (or can it?).
> 
> As expressed by you, here, it is not possible in topic maps, no, because
> TOPICS DON'T HAVE SCOPE. (Sorry about the shouting.)
> 
> However, I would argue that by not giving a topic "X" (that reifies a
> concept "Y") any characteristics in the scope "Z", you are effectively
> stating that the concept "Y" is not valid in that scope.

You're right. This is the way we *have* to do it because of the definition 
in ISO 13250. No way to get around it.

But I think we have lost expressive power by stating that it was only
a shortcut (for assigning the scope set to *all* charateristics of the
topic). I know that it was necessary to define it that way because
the topic (link) element is 'only' the sum of its characteristics and
not a real object of its own (as I would prefer it to be). Why? Because
then we could (and I am leaving ISO 13250 ground here) fulfill Ivan's
and my (and probably others) requirement to scope a real world concept
instead of scoping 'only' its characteristics.

I assume it has to be implemented with an application specific association
which is interpret by the application (UI) to be in sync with ISO 13250.

BTW: Are you, SteveP, covering this somehow in your scope talk in Montreal?
 
> >I hope we will have some discussions concerning this issue in
> >Montreal (SC34 WG3 meeting).
> 
> Hmm. I'm not sure it will be at the top of the agenda. We need to get
> formal work on the data model started.

I see and the data model is really of highest importance. Maybe we find
some time in a break.

Cheers,
--Holger

-- 
Dr. H. Holger Rath <holger.rath@empolis.com>
Director Research & Development
empolis GmbH, Havelstr. 9, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
http://www.empolis.com/ -- mobile: +49.172.66.90.427
phone: +49.6151.380.292 -- fax: +49.6151.380.488

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

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

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