Re: [topicmaps-comment] multilingual thesaurus - language, scope,and topic naming constraint

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Kal

> This is a classic example of the TNC causing a problem - the fact is that
> in certain languages, the same word will be used to signify multiple
> concepts. In this case, it seems obvious to me that the experts who created
> the thesaurus have identified two distinct abstract concepts and I would
> argue that it is important to retain them both.

I have no choice. I don't want to "interpret" that thesaurus, just "translate" it in XTM.

> 1) Select one language for the basename, and make all others variants -
> this is undesirable because if you choose Spanish as your "base" language
> you will still end up with an undesired merge.

Exactly.

> 2) If the thesaurus provides any notion of different contexts for the two
> definitions, use that context to create  a scope for all base names.

No context. The "themes" and "groups" used to classify the descriptors are the same ...
because the two concepts are definitely very close ...

> 3) Don't use a base name! Just make your name strings occurrences and scope
> those by language.

That's a stealth to escape the problem ... doable, but I don't really feel like it.
Of course you can do all sorts of things like that, even without scoping, like replace

<baseName>
<scope>
<topicRef xlink:href="#spanish"/>
</scope>
<baseNameString>economía</baseNameString>
</baseName>

by (completely equivalent IMO)

<occurrence>
<instanceOf>
<topicRef xlink:href="#spanish-name"/>
</instanceOf>
<resourceData>economía</resourceData>
</occurrence>

 ... and if you do that everywhere you have a name, you get definitely rid of the TNC,
since all your <baseName> are turned into <occurrence> . And in a sense, it is clearer in
that case. You say what *type* of name you use (the spanish one). This is yet another
example where difference between scoping and typing is blurred ...

> 4) Use some (probably unattractive) unique identifier as the basename (e.g.
> the thesaurus entry number suitably prefixed). Then add the entries as
> variants scoped as XTM-displayable, XTM-sortable and by language.

They are definitely not "variants". There again, it's a technical stealth ...

> 5) Don't apply the TNC...sorry, couldn't resist that one ;-)

In fact, that's what we're gonna do to begin with ;-)

Thanks for your thoughts

Bernard