Re: [xtm-wg] re topic.scope

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

Piotr,

Scope tends to be very overloaded.
And this is the source of confusion.
Its main purpose is  to assert a context within which a certain
statement (association) holds.
Then people start punting all convenience shortcuts into it and get
confused.

Topic can not "make sense in a certain context"
Topic by itself does not make any sense AT ALL!
Topic's characteristics do.
And YES you can scope all topic characteristics.
Lets be clear on this.

As Steve P. says,.
>Themes specified on a <topic> element are only "inherited" by names
>and occurrences that are subelements of that element.

So in ISO if you put a <scope> on a <topic> level it will mean that
all topic characteristics defined by this <topic> element
"make sense in a certain scope".

But stop, remember that there are might be multiple
<topic> elements for a single topic (subject) plus associations ...

However, I found it a good practice to use
typing for hiding topics from certain user groups, for example.
(similar to Piotr's and Ivan's suggestion, I guess)

--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: "Piotr Kaminski" <pkaminsk@who.net>
To: <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] re topic.scope


> 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."
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>



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/