[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position o nthe progress ion of Topic Map standards

Jan Algermissen sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:19:03 +0200

Dmitry wrote:

> We can define following additional axiom in "extended" theory:
> If X1 has BaseName Y1 in scope S
> and  X2 has BaseName Y2 in scope S
> Then X1 has the same subject identifier as X2

So you need to make up an identifier for this and make it a
subject indicator of both topics. Can you sketch an example
of how this would look?

> Now let's say that it is not enough. We can add new axiom:
> If X1 has Internal occurrence O with  value  V in scope S
> and X2 has internal occurrence O with value V in scope S
> and  occurrence O is InverseFunctionalOccurrence
> Then X1 has the same subject identifier as X2

See above.

> As soon as data model is TMDM all possible merging rules are
> expressible as additional axioms which reduce identity management to
> only one basic  merging rule based on subject identifiers.

But then you have just moved the rule definition from properties to
characteristics - where is the gain?

> Situation is different if I decide to go outside of TMDM and move to
> the level of RM data model. 

What does it mean to 'move to the RM level'?

In this case I cannot easily  construct
> rules described above. 

Sure you can. What makes you think you can't?

With TMDM I can use as much ontology commitments
> as I want to define new merging rules and TMDM has already rich
> semantics built-in.

But the....how do you define them?

> With RM data model I am limited with syntactic low level constructs
> such as SIDPs and basic assertions. It is difficult
> to express rich identity rules at this level (with almost zero
> semantics) 

Noone has ever said that the RM is to be used that way. The RM
enables the definition of the semantics you talk about. THAT is
its purpose.

because it requires to explain many other things first. What
> is a name in terms of RM DM?  

These questions are exactly what the ontological commitments
(semantics) answer you define in terms of the RM.

What is an occurrence? What is scope? If
> I know answer for this questions I can easily define semantically
> meaningful identity rules even at RM DM level.

Again: the RM enables standardized means to define what a scope, occurrence
etc. is and also arbitrary extensions of these semantics.


> Dmitry
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org