[sc34wg3] New TMCL slides

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
> * Patrick Durusau
>>
>> But the "signatures" are an artifact of TMCL. Are you saying that 
>> syntax should drive the creation of association types?
>>
>> You may mean some deeper design consideration that underlies 
>> "signatures" in TMCL but that isn't apparent here.
>
> What Dmitry is saying is that he wants to be able to specify in TMCL 
> that the works-for association type can have either the role types 
> person and company or person and non-profit-organization. That's two 
> different "signatures" (which is not an official term). So this is the 
> structure that he wants his topic map to have, but he can't express 
> that in the current TMCL.
>
> What I'm saying is that I don't think he should be using two different 
> combinations of role types in the same association type in the first 
> place. Therefore I'm not so keen to add support for that.
>
Well, I got the part that you disagreed with it, ;-), but what I am 
missing is why?

For example, I currently have a "works-for" relationship with different 
types of entities. Or to recall the multidimensional query requirements 
I posted yesterday, I am on the way to having a "diagnosed-with" 
relationship with different *types* of issues.

If I choose to model an association where the type of the other role 
player changes as one association type (I can hear Newcomb howling in 
the distance) I don't see how that disadvantages you or anyone else.

I suppose part of my reluctance is that I prefer that we enable users to 
create their own topic maps using such models and constraints as they 
find useful and necessary, with a minimum of forcing views of "correct" 
modeling upon them.

Hope you are having a great weekend!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick at durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)