[sc34wg3] Scope - SAM (as in TM model) - Inferencing

[Robert Barta]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:09:48PM +0200, Marc de Graauw wrote:
> If we take the 'all subjects' view
> (http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0327.htm#N221) it is easy to
> express both facts:
> 
> [ t = 'N' / X Y ]   (Topic t has name N when X AND Y apply)
> [ t = 'N' / X ; 'N' / Y ]   (Topic t has name N when X OR Y applies)

This all reminds me on the name variants in XTM1.0:

   2.2.2.2 Variant Name

   A variant name is an alternative form of a base name, that is optimized
   for a particular computational purpose, such as sorting or display.
   It may be any kind of a resource, including a string. An application
   chooses among variant names by evaluating their parameters.

except that the 'parameters' and the variant names where just add-ons.

Would it be possible to make the variant structure 'first-class' and use
the tree-like structure for scope structuring? Say,

t (topic)
bn @ X Y: N    # (1) Topic t has name N when X AND Y apply
bn @ X  : N2   # (2) Topic t has name N2 when X applies
bn @ X Z: N3

Currently, there seems (at least to me) to be a rather artificial
distinction between variant ("suitable for processing/displaying")
and basename ("suitable for displaying and merging").

> Since the behaviour described is pretty common, I believe we have a very
> strong case not to leave the TNC up to applications, just make it optional.
> The basic rules would than be:

> IF you have a neat, well defined, controlled vocabulary
     use names and the TNC.
> ELSE
     use subject identity.

And maybe we could let the application choose what scope(s) it thinks is/are
"controlled". The semantics is then reproducable over different implementations.

\rho