Re: [topicmaps-comment] Mapping Topics to Cyc: How To Handle Scope?

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>]

[W. Eliot Kimber]
>...
> I don't think there's any question scopes have to be translated to Cyc
> microtheories. My question is exactly how. In particular, does it make
> sense for each unique collection of themes to be represented as a
> distinct microtheory or should each scoping topic be represented as a
> separate microtheory, which can then be generalized together to create
> microtheories that are the union of the scoping topics?
>
> I'm asking this question because it's not clear to me what the semantic
> of scope is: does it mean that a characteristic is meaningful when *any*
> of the themes in the scope is "active" or does it mean that the
> characteristic is meaningful IFF *all* of the themes in the scope are
> active.
>
> I think it's the former, but I'm not sure there's concensus on this or
> even if there can be consensus on this.
>

I think there is need to have it either way for different purposes (such as
queries), but aside from that I have always understood it to be an "OR"
situation just as you do.  The XTM spec says the the context is the union of
all the individual scopes, so it really has to be a "OR" doesn't it?

Cheers,

Tom P