Re: [topicmaps-comment] Challenge Part 2 : Metadata

[Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>]

At 19:30 19/11/2001 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>Hello folks
>
>A challenge in two parts, part 2 ...
>
>What shall we do with metadata on assertions, and singularly
>metadata indicating quality and source of information?
>
>Back to the example of Part1, the full information to be processed
>is in fact:
>
>"*According to Survey AAA*, it's *possible* that, by the end of
>2001, France Telecom will control more than 30% of the Swedish
>phone market"
>
>The *source* (Survey AAA) and *quality* (possible) of information
>are in fact encoded as Metadata in the original document.
>
>How do you deal with those metadata in XTM, so that, when
>rendering the information by processing the TM, they appear to the
>end-user for what they are : metadata on an assertion, and not
>members in the association representing the assertion?
>
>Bottom line
>
>Would it make sense to put metadata on a Topic Map document,
>e.g. Dublin Core metadata?

Hmmm possibly. But why use flat metadata when you have topics ? ;-)

In my reply to Part 1, I developed two associations:

Event X will occur in Timeframe Y  (an association of type AnalystPrediction)

Company A captures Share B of Market C (an association of type 
CaptureMarketShare)

I think that there are three ways of playing this:

1) Add a third role to the schema for AnalystPrediction:

Analyst Z predicts that Event X will occur in Timeframe Y

2) Reify AnalystPrediction and use it in an association of type Asserts

Analyst M asserts Statement N

3) Scope the AnalystPrediction association

I think that I would prefer (2) in most circumstances, although I think 
that a closer analysis of the kinds of expected queries, and the level of 
indexing required to answer queries in an acceptable time-frame would also 
have to be considered (e.g. is it more efficient for the indexing engine to 
return "All associations where topic T plays role R" than to return "All 
associations where Topic t is a scoping topic").
I think that (2) is nice because I can more easily reify this and use it in 
other associations - e.g Assertion X revised to Assertion Y on Date D, and 
I could also add occurrences such as pointers to the document(s) which 
quote this assertion or the documents which use this assertion as an 
assumption. Of course, if your analysis shows that the association between 
the Statement and the Analyst does not need any further explication, then 
Scope is probably more efficient.

Cheers,

Kal

---------------------------------------------------
Kal Ahmed
XML and Topic Map Consultancy
e: kal@techquila.com
w: www.techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531
---------------------------------------------------