[sc34wg3] Association items

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:18:11 +0200

* Nikita Ogievetsky
| In fact it is quite possible that there should be two different
| sub-standards of topic map: 
| - Topic maps for knowledge aggregation (TM4KA)
| - Topic maps for knowledge sharing (TM4KS)

How would you do this in practice? Two different data models, two sets
of syntaxes, etc? Or some other way?
| Reusing acronyms from above,
| TM4KA requires all constraints to be maximally removed, 
| TM4KS benefits if accompanied by a schema/ontology/etc.
| TM4KS schema feeds initial state of TM4KA,
| TM4KS once complete leads to a new version of TM4KS schema that then
| feeds TM4KA.

Wouldn't this be doable simply by using different TMCL schemas for
different stages of the process?
* Lars Marius Garshol
| TMDM (and XTM) do not accomodate this view, as associations must
| have at least one role.
* Nikita Ogievetsky
| Empty association is really a dumb case [...]

Agreed. :-)

| [...] unless it is some sort of a singleton (for example if there is
| a constraint that there can be only one association of that type
| within a given context, hmmm... 

Even so I think it would be kinda silly. What would the existence or
non-existence of the singleton association of that type tell you, and
how could it be the best way to communicate this information? I don't
see it working, really.

| does TMCL provision for such thing?)

| The debate narrows down into the association's semantics: a typed
| set VS a relationship.

That's pretty clear from the prose: the intended semantics is that of
a relationship.

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >