[sc34wg3] Review of N0393
Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:27:36 +0200
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> | And what about assertions? Are they expressed with properties, or
> | are they not? That's just about the most basic question about the RM
> | you can imagine and N0393 does not even answer that.
> * Jan Algermissen
> | Well, look at Section 2.2, it's all there.
> You are right. I would recommend cutting the definition of 'assertion'
> after the first sentence and moving it to section 4, since the
> glossary is not the right place to define key aspects of the data
> Also, if I read the rest of the document correctly, this means that it
> is illegal to do merging on the basis of assertions, which again means
> that it is illegal to do merging on the basis of relationships.
> Clearly, that's unacceptable.
Well, at least you did not understand the rest of the document correctly
(prose needs to be improved I suppose).
N0393 defines merging on the basis of SIDP values. SIDP values can either
be built-in (as the values for the N0396 properties [subject address],
[subject identifiers] and [source locators]) or they can be conferred on
the basis of role playings of a topic. This means that the fact that a topic
plays a certain role in an assertion of a certain type can be defined (in a TMA)
to result in a value of a certain property. This property can then be used
for merging rules.
Note that we are talking about a data model, N0393 does not contrain applications
to implement it that way, what matters is that the merging is (eventually)
done on the basis of the existence of the assertion.
> | Lars, what is the purpose/benefit of conveying your disappointment?
> Two things, really:
> - it's a kind of high-level feedback on my overall reaction to N0393,
> - it serves to explain the position I take on what should be done
> about it.
> That's pretty much it.
Well, what I seriously don;t understand is this:
Is the reason to object to N0393
a) the quality of the prose
b) the quality/nature of the overall concept
If it is a) then I don't see the reason to object to the general idea,
if it is b) then please say WHY.
Lars, two of the major issues you raised in your review posting result
from lack of clarity/misunderstanding of the prose (see last reply and
above), so you propably object to N0393 on the basis of conceptual
Bottom line: is your understanding of the concept behind N0393 clear
enough to serve as the basis for the decision to propose to take
the whole thing out of ISO13250?
In other words: do you *know* what the nature of the thing is that you
propose to be taken out of ISO13250?
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org