[sc34wg3] Association items

Nikita Ogievetsky sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:11:09 -0400

! * 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?

Just as you suggested below.

! | 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?

That is exactly what I meant. Only schema for TM4KA should be more relaxed.

! * 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. 

Me neither, just suggested a situation when it could have any sense at all.

! 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.
It would mean that in scope X there no topics related through an association
of type Y.
Still two topics X & Y are in this relationship.

! | 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.

But it is not clear from the historical use of associations, especially the
way that they were meant to replace facets.

I wonder if facets should be considered to be brought back into XTM.

On the other hand, even "monadic" associations (re: Murray's posts on the
other sub-thread) have a few topics related - if you count association type
and scope.