Re: [topicmaps-comment] re: subject identity

[Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@jurakm.com>]

[Thomas B. Passin]
  > You say "will have to be scoped".  Once again, notice that if they
had been
  > scoped beforehand (their names, I mean), in the merged topic the
names would
  > have remained scoped.  So it is "scope me now or scope me later".
  >

Yes: names, occurrences, and any relevant associations. The
'topicScopingAssociation' (snipped) was suggested as a 'syntactic
shortcut' to avoid all that.

Iau


Thomas B. Passin wrote:

 > [Ivan Uemlianin]
 >
 >
 >> <topicMap>
 >>
 >>    <topic id="lc">
 >>      <subjectIdentity>
 >>        <subjectIndicatorRef
 >>         xlink:href="http:"www.biogs.org/~123456789012.html"/>
 >>      </subjectIdentity>
 >>      <baseName>
 >>        <baseNameString>Lewis Carroll</baseNameString>
 >>      </baseName>
 >>    </topic>
 >>
 >>    <topic id="cd">
 >>      <subjectIdentity>
 >>        <subjectIndicatorRef
 >>         xlink:href="http:"www.biogs.org/~123456789012.html"/>
 >>      </subjectIdentity>
 >>      <baseName>
 >>        <baseNameString>Charles Dodgson</baseNameString>
 >>      </baseName>
 >>    </topic>
 >>
 > <snip/>
 >
 >> </topicMap>
 >>
 >> As the topics in this topic map refer to the same object, they could be
 >> merged.  Once this is done however, each of the characteristics of the
 >> new topic will have to be scoped under either "childrensLiterature" or
 >> "predicateCalculus", similarly with associations in which the new topic
 >> plays a role (excluding things like birthday - assuming pseudonyms have
 >> such things. ...
 >