[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations

Lars Heuer heuer at semagia.com
Fri Feb 1 08:36:57 EST 2008

Hi Dmitry,

> My suggestion is to have a default mapping which does not require
> any additional annotations or templates
> into standard roles "tm:subject" and "tm:object", and to have a
> mechanism for overwriting defaults if someone wants to do this.

Yes, but the problem remains that we'll mislead users to create all
over the binary associations where one topic plays the 'subject' and
one topic plays the 'object' role. Lazy users wouldn't use good role
types, but the subject/object-ones. Further, the subject/object role
types may give the impression, that associations are directed, but
this is not the case in Topic Maps.

As said, the idea is not bad but I agree with Steve that we shouldn't
do it.

Best regards,

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list