[sc34wg3] The interpretation of facets

Michel Biezunski sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:59:42 -0400

Martin Bryan:

> I do not see any other way in which we can create associations with items
> that are not otherwise part of the topic map using the existing set of
> components in the SAM. I feel it should not be necessary to abuse the SAM
> Occurrence item in this way, but given the SAM team's refusal to add a
> proper Facet item to the model the only choice I had was to force the
> creation of topics for facet-property-name/facet-property-value 
> pairs and to
> associate these with SAM Occurrence items. I have always objected against
> needing to create topics specifically to record the names of 
> facets and the
> values assigned to them. The proposals in N391 are anethema to 
> me, but they
> are the only way I can see of applying the current set of SAM information
> items to the recording of facets that allows all possible uses of 
> facets to
> be covered.


Why instead of mapping to SAM don't you consider this
approach? Map the HyTm DTD to the TMM. Interchange could then 
take place at that level instead and you might not have to change 
the DTD at all. You would still be able to use the HyTime DTD as 
such with facets and all the rest and be able to interchange with
a SAM-based application?

I think the problem you're facing is just the first one
in a series of problems that we are seeing appearing all
around. There are variant structures that are potential
candidates to be integrated into topic maps, and the
SAM model (as well as the XTM DTD) have not been designed
to enable that. They have been designed for one unique
representation, and there are many people who are reluctant
or can't convert into that particular model.

Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901