[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Marc de Graauw
| 
| We might get around the counterintuitive consequences by saying:
| when scoped, a basename is not a valid name *for this topic* outside
| this scope. It might be a valid name *for the subject*, that we do
| not know, and the Topic Map does not say anything about this. 

You repeat this in a later email, where I feel it is clearer, so I'll
respond to it there.

| 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

This is a strange summary. There are two different terms, and you are
not comparing their definitions. What is the difference you are trying
to bring out?

| So that in a sense <baseName> elements have a double use: as real
| basenames, which are unique identifiers, and as name-strings, which
| can be used in whichever way an application chooses?

Not whichever way. It is clear that they must be usable as labels for
the subject.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| How about phrasing the definition of scope as shown below?
| 
|   All topic characteristic assignments have a <term>scope</term>,
|   which defines the extent to which the statement represented by the
|   assignment is valid. Outside the context represented by the scope
|   the statement is not known to be valid. Formally, a scope is
|   composed of a set of subjects that together define the context. That
|   is, the topic characteristic is known to be valid only in contexts
|                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|   where <emph>all</emph> the subjects in the scope apply.
 
* Marc de Graauw
|
| This means the existing definition would remain as it is (say *not
| valid* instead of *not known to be valid*), 

But those two phrases are different! The first says that when the
scope does not apply it is not valid, though it might still be. The
second is correct.

| though we could add a sentence explaining these issues, i.e.: "This
| restriction does not say anything about the relation between the
| subject and the characteristic in contexts where where not all the
| subjects in the scope apply. It only restricts the relation between
| the topic and the characteristic."

Verbiage may be the way to resolve this, I agree.
 
| And we could say:
| 
| A base name is a name or label for a topic, and, indirectly, for the
| subject the topic represents.
| 
| What do you think?

That would be true, but I'm not sure it would accomplish anything.
Why do you suggest this phrasing?

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >