[sc34wg3] Re: [topicmapmail] Multiple scopes on associations
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:24:20 +0100
> | I've never read it this way, but even if that is true,
> XTM 1.0 is very clear on this, even if ISO 13250 is not.
You are sensitive. My statement is about your interpretation of Steve's
model, not the XTM model. (see below)
> | does the merging of a set of added themes to a set scopes result in
> | a single scope or a set of sets?
> A single scope in XTM 1.0.
So the resultant scope statement is a set containing the scopes assigned by
the merged maps and the set defined by the association.
> In PMTM4 I think the added themes do not
> increase the number of scopes, but I could be wrong.
How does this square with your claim that:
| What SRN is talking about is a distinct set of sets of topics. This
| would translate to
| <!ELEMENT scope (set+)>
| <!ELEMENT set (topicRef+)>
> | My concern is that scopes must be added to existing themes (see
> | comment on the scope attribute of the assoc element definition in
> | 13250). I therefore see this as a set of sets scenario. In XTM the
> | "sets" must be singular, but they are still sets. The overall model
> | that covers both of these is the set of sets metaphor, though
> | personally I see no reason why this should not form a single set.
> I'm not sure I understood this. Can you explain?
> (It may be easier to explain this with reference to
> <URL: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0242.htm#d1e381 >.)
What an earth does the definition of Base name information items (which your
fragment identifier points to) have to do with this question? The definition
of Association information items scope statements in the referenced document
is "This is the set of topic information items that represent the scope of
this association. The interpretation of this value is dependent on the
application. The set may be empty. " I note that it is a set, which is what
I agree it should be. Not a single item, as XTM seems to require.
The relevant statement in the XTM <association> element definition of your
model, "If the <association> element has a <scope> child element, that
element is processed according to the rules of section 3.14, with the new
association information item as the current information item. " This appears
totally unhelpful as far as this question is concerned.