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

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

Paul Prueitt "psp" <beadmaster@ontologystream.com> writes:

> You are saying
> 
> " We
>     believed that, if a topic is supposed to be
>     considered a member of a scope, then, by Golly, it
>     should appear inside the corresponding <scope>
>     element.  Otherwise, the syntax becomes
>     unlearnable, because it is too tricky."

> But this is not how the brain works.  And the brain
> is the only system that can do knowledge processing
> at this time.  Somehow the brain has a by-pass that
> avoids the very problem that you say prevents late
> binding of scope.

I'm baffled as to the relationship between what I was
talking about and whatever it is that you're talking
about.  I don't want your readers to think that I said
the things that you're saying I said.

I didn't say anything about the brain.  I did not
mention a problem that prevents late binding of scope,
since I don't know what "late binding of scope" means.
I did not use the phrase "late binding" at all.

I was talking about the XTM information interchange
representation, and saying that it was designed to be
as simple and intuitive as possible.  The person I was
responding to had suggested that the value of the
xml:lang attribute should be added to XTM and be
considered to specify a scoping topic, even though this
would make natural language topics the only class of
topics that would not appear in the normal way within
the content of the appropriate <scope> element.  I was
saying that I didn't think that this suggestion was a
good idea.  That's all.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA