[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
05 Sep 2002 10:06:41 +0200

* Jan Algermissen
| A note regarding RM-thinking here (as far as I understand it):
| At the RM level there will only be *one* node that represents the
| concept of the "name that has "Mama Cass" as a 'string value' (the
| name that has all the "Mama Cass" <baseNametring> elements as
| subject indicators).  This node may then participate in
| topic-basename assertions (those that trigger the TNC) and
| topic-name assertions (those that don't trigger the TNC).
| So, at the RM level one can't say 'this *particular* "Mama Cass"
| name', there is only one because it is a subject in it's own right.

That's fair enough, but if two topic name nodes have different
assertions connecting them to the identical string it need not follow
that their respective topics must be merged.

In any case, there are three decisions to take here:

 - how to represent this in the XTM syntax (currently we have decided
   on an attribute on <baseNameString>),

 - how to represent it in the SAM (currently the now renamed topic
   name item will have two properties [label] and [identifier]), and

 - how to represent it in the Reference Model (no official decision
   has been made, but the idea of separate assertion types has been
   floated and appears obvious).

The most important of these is probably the syntax decision, since
the syntax is what most people relate to.

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