[sc34wg3] Re: integrating all TMAs
Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:42:07 +0200
This posting and a phone conversation with Patrick yesterday
cleared up what for me at least was a major misunderstanding.
At 14:39 14.04.2003 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>Let me explain some of the biggest concerns I have about the new RM and
>>how they exemplify my comments above. Bernard made a point that I
>>heartily agree with. He noted, as have I, that the new RM makes a claim
>>to be able to unambigously integrate all TMAs. This is a bogus notion.
>Not sure what you mean by "unambigously integrate all TMAs." There are no
>statements that I can find in the TMM that refer to integrating TMAs.
>Perhaps you could point me to the portion of the TMM that lead you to this
>conclusion? If there is language that is mis-leading on this point I would
>like to know where it can be found.
>Nothing about automatically integrating TMAs nor anything particularly
>remarkable about distinguishing properties by their origin.
I too was under the impression that the RM, in some
magical, undefined way, would allow "topic maps"
conforming to multiple "TMAs" to be integrated
automatically, without any further user activity.
>to do the 'merger' you refer to in your post would require a third TMA
>that governs the topic map instances that are governed by your other two TMAs.
And that third "TMA" would have to be designed and
implemented by a user (or developer) based on the
(purely human-readable) documentation of the SIDP
facilities of the two original "TMAs", right?
OK. Then I think I understand a lot more. In a sense,
what the RM is saying is:
* Here is a generic model of topics and assertions
(and, most importantly, subject identification
facilities) that can be used to express [pretty
much] *any* kind of information.
* The SAM is a specialization of this model that
subclasses assertions as associations, occurrences,
names and variants (and permits a special kind of
assertion - called scope - to be made about those
* All information models that can be thought of in
terms of topics and assertions can be mapped to
the RM and those mappings can be documented in such
a way that humans can build applications that
integrate information conforming to many
Am I getting close? Is there anything else?
 Which may be all information models, I don't know
 The most important goal is such 'integration' is
achievement of the collocation objective ("SLUO").
Steve Pepper, Ontopian
DUMUS DELENDUM EST