[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position o nthe
progress ion of Topic Map standards
Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:35:37 +0200
Robert Barta wrote:
> > But then you have just moved the rule definition from properties to
> > characteristics - where is the gain?
> 1) We do not burden the _data model_ with these things. I would assume that
> all attempts to handle this gracefully have failed, because it is simply
> not the right place to do.
The RM says that two topics that have the same subject must be merged and
that the decision if two topics represent the same subject is entirely
made on the basis of SIDPs. The RM also says that the definition of
SIDPs is within the realm of the semantics that govern a given topic map.
I see not burdon on the data model (the RM data model) at all. Can you
> 2) Enourmous flexibility. The above equivalence relation between topics
> is induced by names in scopes. But I can use _any_ rule which is possible
> in AsTMa! to induce other equivalences
Well sure. Given an API that has a method for merging two topics I can
implement an unlimited number of applications that read rules and
The issue is standardization and interchange of information, it is not
the question how to built applications that merge topics.
I assume we are somehow talking past each other, or?
> > > 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.
> Is it declarative?
What do you mean?
To me the following is purely declarative:
"Properties discriminate the subjects of topics and topics with the
same subject merge".
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org