[sc34wg3] Scope - SAM (as in TM model) - Inferencing
Sat, 7 Sep 2002 12:41:50 +1000
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:
220.127.116.11 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,
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.
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.