Re: [topicmaps-comment] TAO vs. ERA

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>]

[Bernard Vatant]

> Robert
>
> > For associations I can choose a scope to constrain its validity,
> > for instanceOf I can not. In other words, the scope of an instanceOf
> > is then the unconstrained-scope? Do I interpret something into the
> > standard which is not here?
>
> I think you are right. There is no <scope> in <instanceOf>, which means
when you
> declare an instantiation this way, it's an "absolute" one. If you want to
scope
> it, you have to create explicit class role and instance role. IMO this is
an
> inconsistency in the spec, since <instanceOf> is a shortcut for an
association,
> and hence should be "scopable".
>

The whole situation can get out of hand rapidly.  Take an instanceOf that
refers to a topic.  The various names of that topic could in theory have
their own scopes.  Does that mean that the original thing is NOT an
instanceOf when the referenced topic (has a name characteristic that) is out
of scope?  Extending this line of nasty inquiry, the scope topics themselves
(their characteristics, of course) could be out of scope.  Do they then
apply or not?

I don't think it is useful to use scopes with topics when they are applied
as scopes or instanceOfs.  Does anyone have any examples that show the
opposite here?

Cheers,

Tom P