[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Jan Algermissen]

Marc de Graauw wrote:
> 
> [Jan Algermissen]
> > So, my understanding of a scoped basename is, that it serves as an
> unambiguous
> > name when the scope applies and that it does not serve as such when the
> scope
> > does not apply. In other words, the scope expresses the extend of validity
> of the
> > unambiguity of the name, not the extend of validity of the name alone.
> >
> I don't see how this reflects what the standard says.

Uh, sorry, unclear wording again. What I meant was that a scoped topic-basename-
characteristic assignment doesn't say anything about any use of the name
as a non-basename (label/mere name/..).



> > When I was thinking about an example for the topic-label association
> above,
> > I realized that after all, your initial problem isn't solved:
> > Suppose I say:
> >
> > '"tennis" is a label for topic T1 in the scope {English}'
> >
> > does this imply that 'tennis' is not a valid label for T1 in German ???
> > The 'extend of validity' of labaling T1 with 'tennis' is expressed to
> > be the scope {English}. Since we can consider {German} to be beyond that
> > extend it should be logical to say that 'tennis' is not a valid label
> > for T1 in German....
> >
> > That's rediculous, isn't it ?
> 
> That's right. Apparently I didn't explain myself very well.

To be clear: I did not mean that *your* examples are rediculous!!!

>  I was triggered
> by thinking of 2 Topic Maps:
> 
> Topic Map 1:
> [T1 = "tennis" / german @"http://www.sport.org/tennis.html"]
> 
> Topic Map 2:
> [T2 = "tennis" / dutch @"http://www.sport.org/tennis.html"]
> 
> These maps seem to contradict each other when we interpret TM 1 as saying
> that 'tennis' is a valid basename ONLY when {german} applies, and TM2 says
> 'tennis' is a valid basename when {dutch} applies and {german} does not.
> Since the topics refer to the same subject, this raises the question whether
> 'tennis' is a valid basename for this subject when {dutch} applies.

Yes, see my other mail on 'if and only if'.
> 
> The counterintuitivity is caused by the fact that when I write Topic Map 1,
> I do not intend to say anything about what is the case when {dutch} applies
> at all. I just want to express a fact I know about german: that 'tennis' is
> an (unambigious) name for some subject T1. It is counterintuitive if I -
> unwillingly - make all sorts of assertions about whether or not 'tennis' is
> an (unambigious) name for subject T1 in Dutch. In writing Topic Map 1, I do
> not want to say anything about Dutch!

Right.

> 
> I see 3 ways around this problem:
> 
> 1) Drop the word 'only' in the SAM. Topic Map 1 does not say anything about
> the validity of the basename when {german} does not apply.

Yes. What about something like 'the scope on an assertion expresses one (of
many possible) context in which the assertion is valid.  ??

> 
> 2) Distinguish between topic and subject. Topic Map 1 says that 'tennis' is
> NOT a valid basename for topic T1 when {german} does not apply, but it does
> not say anything about whether 'tennis' is a valid basename for the subject
> when  {german} does not apply.

I don't think that this is a good idea. One of the most important thing about
topic maps is, that a single subject allways has only one surrogate (topic).
(Topics that 'have' the same subject are to be merged!)

> 
> 3) Insist that 'tennis' in T1 and T2 are two distinct basenames, not the
> same basename. 

How would that work ? 

> So Topic Map 1 only says something about the basename in
> Topic Map 1. This solution did not seem right to me. It is like saying: "My
> mother Mieke and my aunt Mieke have different names which contain the same
> string". 

But isn't something that is a name and 'has' the string 'Mieke' the same
subject as something else that is a name and 'has' the string 'Mieke' ??
In other words, what could be used to distinguish them from each other ?

> 
> > >
> > > This brings to light some interesting differences between our standards:
> > > ISO13250: topic name = A string of characters specified as a name of a
> > > *topic*
> > > SAM: A base name is a name or label for a *subject*
> > > XTM: A *topic* may have zero or more names
> >
> > Can you explain what you mean, I do not understand.
> >
> 
> XTM and 13250 relate names with topics, SAM with relates names with
> subjects. I wondered whether this change was intentional and whether there
> are any consequences.

I don't think that there are any consequences. Lars, what do
you think ?

Jan

> 
> Marc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen
Consultant & Programmer

Tel:   ++49 (0)40 89 700 511
       ++49 (0)177 283 1440
Fax:   ++49 (0)40 89 700 841 
Email: algermissen@acm.org
Web:   http://www.topicmapping.com