Re: [xtm-wg] re topic.scope

["Piotr Kaminski" <pkaminsk@who.net>]

I have a potentially silly suggestion to make:

For topics, does type classification not serve the same purpose as Ivan
would like scopes to serve?

So if a topic only makes sense in a certain "context", just make that
context into a class, and make sure the topic is of that class, and others
that don't belong in the context aren't.  It would be the class of "all
things that make sense in <fill-in-the-blank> context>.

The obvious problem with this interpretation is that the topics' classes
will not match the associations' scopes (unless a topic can be both a class
and a scope simultaneously? hmm...).  Which of course brings up another
suggestion:  why have separate concepts of class and scope for associations?
Just allow them to have multiple types, and use these for scoping.  What's
the big difference between classes and scopes that would prevent this?

Steve P.:  I have not yet read your paper on scoping, though it's on my
immediate to-do list.  If the answers to my questions are all contained
therein, don't waste your time answering my rantings.  :-)

        -- P.

--
  Piotr Kaminski <pkaminsk@who.net>  http://www.csr.uvic.ca/~pkaminsk
  "It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance."



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of
VeriSign's FREE Guide "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://www.verisign.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?a=n094442340008000
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6lIgYB/IWxCAA/yigFAA/2U_rlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/