[sc34wg3] Draft Reference Model

Sam Hunting sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:13:51 -0500 (EST)

> * Jan Algermissen
> | 
> | Here it is:
> |   [...]
> | 
> | Well, or like this:
> |   [...]
> OK, so 
>  a) associations do not map directly to RM assertions, and

Well, an assertion is not homeomorphic to an association, in the sense
that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between markup constructs
(information items?) and graph constructs. 

>  b) their structure is normalized so that the original <member>
>     structure is entirely lost.

Presumably a graph could be constructed, in some application definition
that preserved this information. But there seemed to be no reason. 

I'm not entirely comfortable with the word "normalize" -- on the one hand,
normalization has connotations of simplicity, which is what we are after
(fewer components); on the other hand, in the database world as I
understand it, a relation is by definition normalized, and the kind of
"normalization" we are talking about here (not reflecting the <member>
element in the graph) is a function of application definition, not a
feature of the RM as such. So I think introducing the word
"normalize" would be confusing.

So after all that wordsmithing ...

> Both are entirely OK, and consistent with the SAM, but I wanted to
> check that I had understood your diagram correctly.



> (I assume the choice of the <assertion> element type name was a
> Freudian slip. :-)

Paging Doctor Freud! Paging Doctor Freud!

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.