[sc34wg3] Re: RE: [sc34wg3] new working draft of 13250-5 (Reference Model)
Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:04:01 +0100
Bernard Vatant <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am 09.11.2004,
> I definitely like this way of putting things, which opens the door to any kind of rules of
> identification. So I wonder why to restrict those rules to disclosure of SIP classes.
> Agreed, a SIP can be as complex as can be, but what happens in most "natural"
> identification process is that various rules are applied on properties which are not absolutely SIPs.
just a very quick note (my time is very short).
In my personal opinion, Topic Maps in general mix the level of
structural abstraction of data with the level of how the structural
elements (proxies in the RM, all the information items in the TMDM) are
interpreted with regards to semantics.
In the RM (in my interpretation of it) subject sameness detection rules
is misleading, because they have nothing to do with identifying
subjects, all they do is ensuring a certain quality of the abstract
Take primary keys in relational theory as an analogy: they demand
merging of tuples if they keys are equal (a merging rule). Ok,
relational theory does not support merging of tuples that are not per se
equal, but that is another story.
The idea that tuples in a relation can be understood as representing
real world entities is a totally different story.
I am vehemently in favor of explicitly making the distinction between
the structural abstraction level and the level of how the structural
elements are interpreted wrt semantics.
Jan Algermissen <email@example.com>
Consultant & Programmer