parid0033 | Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:43:50
Nodes will have more than one "subject": they will have multiple assertions made about them. For example, I can think of cases where I am the guarantor of my my own validity (who reported Martin Bryan as being sick last week, Martin Bryan!), which may need to be expressed in some topic map someday. So then I'll have to distinguish the logical me from the physical one to make the nodes unique. (Assertion = [was-sick: Martin Bryan] [reported-by: Martin Bryan]) EMD All you are really saying, as far as I can tell, is that in any assertion a particular node can only play one role in the assertion. I'm not sure that this is really valid but what seems to me to be certain is that the pair of role and player must be unique for a given assertion. Martin Bryan _______________________________________________ sc34wg3 mailing list *********************************************************** From Fri Jan 31 20:42:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BD614C02E for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:42:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (shunting@localhost) by (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id VAA31095 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:42:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:42:21 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Hunting X-Sender: To: Subject: [sc34wg3] RM4TM SLUO : Objective or Requirement? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_HAS_Q_MARK,RCVD_IN_RFCI,AWL version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sam Hunting eTopicality, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm) Topic map consulting and training: Free open source topic map tools: XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
parid0033 | Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:52:55
> I completely agree. SLUO can never be more than a (very important) design
> guideline. One can never be sure subjects are actually represented by only one
> node (topic) since human knowledge is only partial...
A quick comment on this issue:
Subject Identity Discrimination Properties allow the RM (an RM
conformant application) to determine whether two nodes 'have the same
subject' by comparing the values of their SIDPs according to the rules
defined in the governing TM Application Definition (for example the SAM).
If the result of this comparision is that the nodes represent the
same subject, the RM requires the nodes to be merged. It does not
require the nodes to be merged if 'subject equality' cannot be
calculated on the basis of the SIDP values and their semantics
as defined in the application definition.
I think that this is sufficiently expressed by the merging rules, but
possibly an addition to 3.4.1 could further clarify this. ( Steve? )