[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
29 Jun 2002 18:32:44 +0200

* Marc de Graauw
| When we say 'We are open only on Monday', that surely suggests we
| are closed on Tuesday, doesn't it? So I think the way SAM phrases it
| now, does suggest that "...the *assignment of the basename
| 'economie' to topic X* is considered NOT valid in contexts where NOT
| *{Dutch}applies*". And this is wrong - we all agree about that.

* Jan Algermissen
| No, as I said, I do NOT agree with that. If the extend of validity
| of a basename characteristic assignment is the scope {Dutch} then
| (at least I) draw the conclusion that it is NOT valid outside that
| scope.

You have to be more careful with your use of these terms, Jan. I think
what you mean is that '"economie" is in this case not a valid unique
identifier for this topic outside the Dutch scope'. Whether you agree
that it might still be a valid label for the topic outside the Dutch
scope I am not sure.
The term "base name" is not synonymous with "unique identifier
qualified by scope" to the vast majority of people who know about
topic maps, simply because that equation is very unexpected and very
poorly documented in the current specifications.

Also, whether base names will become mere labels or continue to be
used as unique identifiers depends on the resolution of the TNC issue.

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