[sc34wg3] Embedded topics as association type?

[Robert Barta]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:40:06PM +0100, Lars Heuer wrote:
> Okay, a funny discussion about our supermodel status and the embedded
> topics led to the question if shouldn't allow embedded topics for
> association types even if this is bad practise if the user does not
> specify an explicit identity. But CTM already allows association types
> without an explicit identity using wildcards:
> 
>        ?(member: john, group: The-Beatles)
> 
>        ?foo(member: paul, group: The-Beatles)
> 
> If nobody objects I'll allow embedded topics as association type in
> the next draft just to get a more consistent CTM grammar and a uniform
> policy for embedded topics.

Definitely no objection here.

One question: From your phrasing I got unsure whether embedded topics
can now be used for roles and players in such associations. From

   http://www.isotopicmaps.org/ctm/ctm.html#sec-assoc

I read that 'type' and 'player' both can be embedded, right?

Are there any places left where a newly introduced topic can _NOT_ be
embedded?

\rho