[sc34wg3] Association items

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:38:24 +0200

* Nikita Ogievetsky
| To me facets where meant to indicate properties like age, weight,
| height, etc. (monadic predicates indeed). 

Yes, but they were restricted to representing properties of
information resources. Also, the value of the property was restricted
to being a topic. Like you wrote they are very similar to occurrences,
but run the other way. Occurrences let you say that resource X is
relevant to topic Y, while facets let you express that resource X is
written in language Z. In one sense they could be described as working
in opposite directions, occurrences topic -> resource and facets
resource -> topic.

| Now most people use occurrences for this (as far as I know - not
| associations as you and Murray suggest - please correct me if I am
| wrong).

For the examples you gave one would use occurrences, true.

| Use of occurrences for this purpose is quite weird, because
| occurrences were originally meant to represent relationships between
| topics and resources (occurrence of a topic in a resource).

Well, a string is also an information resource; it just happens to be
stored inside the topic map instead of outside.
| However, I am not sure what is right and what is wrong. In the
| current model(s) they perhaps are not counted, but actually they all
| are related through an association. On the other hand, topic players
| themselves help define the nature of association (extensive
| definition).

That's all true.

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