Re: [xtm-wg] re topic.scope

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

Heiko,

I greatly sympathize with what you are saying here.


--Nikita.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heiko Beier" <heiko.beier@moresophy.de>
To: <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] re topic.scope


> Nikita, Piotr,
>
> I agree that scope is a mighty yet heavily overloaded concept. And like
all
> sophisticated 'tools' it can either be of great use when it is used in a
> careful and consistent manner, but hazardous and confusing when used
without
> any special care and methodology. Like many other aspects, I propose, the
> correct use of scope is part of a well planned topic map design process. A
> TM design will absolutely be based on strict type hierarchies and
schemata.
> In such a scenario scope can also be represented, as Piotr said, by the
> superclass hiearchy of a topic. If you understand context as the
environment
> or domain that sorrounds or includes the 'topic of interest' (which is a
> common definition in literature), context can even be interpreted as the
sum
> of all associations and associated topics, i.e. the complete topic map
from
> the point of view of the topic of interest.
>
> This may sound rather academic, but it illustrates my point: there are
many
> ways to 'model' or represent context, and scope is just one means which is
> explicitly declared in the topic map language. So I think scope should be
> used as a syntactic shorthand (note that the <scope> element is again just
a
> shorthand for a topic association expressing scope, where one member plays
> the role of being scoped and the other playing the role of representing
the
> scope) in cases where the more elaborate modelling of context by other
means
> is either too tedious or may be beyond the intended 'expressiveness' of
the
> topic map. In this way it might well serve as a mechanism to 'tag' topics
> for interpretation by application systems for expressing specific user
> contexts (access level, user profile etc.) Or also for a quick way for
> expressing context without a complete redesign of the topic map design.
>
> In other words: I guess the current very interesting discussion around the
> meaning and use of scope will become clearer once topic maps have been
> understood by the community to require a similar design approch like for
> instance OO modelling.
>
> concerning the ideological debate about whether a topic itself can have
> scope - or only topic characteristics should be scopable: I support the
2nd
> opinion. I have to admit I havent yet understood what you can gain from
> allowing scope to be attached to the topic itself. Maybe someone could
> explain this to me. On the other hand I am afraid changing the XTM spec in
> this respect might cause a lot of work as it will also affect the topic
map
> merging rules.
>
>
> Heiko
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Heiko Beier        -  CEO               - moresophy GmbH
> Brienner Str. 54b      -  80333 Munich
> Tel: +49-89-523041-71  -  Fax: +49-89-523041-89
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>          moresophy -> more sophy -> think meta
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Nikita Ogievetsky [mailto:nogievet@cogx.com]
> | Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:50 PM
> | To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
> | Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] re topic.scope
> |
> |
> | 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/
> |
> |
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky, Consultant
Cogitech Inc.  XSLT and  topic maps tutorials.
email: nogievet@cogx.com, phone: (917) 406-8734
http://www.cogx.com      ||     Cogito Ergo XML

------------------------ 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/n7RbFC/zhwCAA/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/