[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Lars,

... skipped the national bodies part :-)

> | Now, if 2) choice were selected you would have:
> |
> | <topic id="t1">
> |    <baseName>
> |       <baseNameString>Mama Cass</baseNameString>
> |   </baseName>
> | </topic>
> | <topic id="t6">
> |   <label>
> |       <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#possible-name"/></instanceOf>
> |       <labelString>Mama Cass</labelString>
> |  </label>
> | </topic>
> |
> | This case is pretty clear, right?
>
> I think so, although this was not what I had in mind. What I was
> thinking was more like this:
>
> <topic id="t6">
>   <baseName>
>       <label>Mama Cass</label>
>  </baseName>
> </topic>
>
> which is a less intrusive change to the syntax.

I do not see it really that way.
In fact, in my example there should have been <baseNameString> in place of
<labelString>.
RM people should correct me if I am wrong, but according to my understanding
inherited from Steve N,
these two pairs are similar in relation to the data they point to:

resourceRef / subjectIndicatorRef
resourceData / baseNameString

I just did not like <baseNameString> as the child element of <label>:
its name is too long and unnecessary constrains semantics
I like <labelString> or just <string> better.

> <instanceOf> on base names has now been made a separate issue from the
> TNC, but it still needs to be settled.

That is true. I just had thrown them together.
By the way it is worth mentioning that one of the variants considered in
Montreal
was to specify TNC-ness using baseName typing.

> | (<labelString> I had invented just now and for the purpose of this
> | example only)
>
> Yep. :)
>

  Nikita Ogievetsky,             Cogitech Inc.
  Topic Maps Tutorials and Consultancy
  nogievet@cogx.com   --   (917) 406-8734
  http://www.cogx.com     Cogito Ergo XML