[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:31:12 -0700
I am with Lars and Kal on this.
In around 70's in USSR people got the notion
of a new plastic and aluminum millennium and threw away antic and
highly valued bountiful things of bronze, cupper, silver and even gold.
Nobody could ever understand russian soul but lets not run after plastic.
(I hope you know what I mean)
It is very useful but not for everything.
Bernard, I do not see your problem:
"Henry is King of Navarre and King of France from 1589 to 1610"
I was proposing structured scopes two years ago (as I think many others did)
But that proposal was put on a waiting list.
Ands I must admit that I had waited quite successfully.
Lets use scopes for what they are good for (like in Lars's examples for
for everything else there are association members.
For distinguishing roles of scope themes there is the topic typing
(type of topic that plays the role of scope theme).
Primitive but works.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Vatant" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def
> I'm glad we share positions on that. The way you extend the debate reminds
me of the very
> short exchange we had a month ago on topicmapmail about "source" of
associations. What I
> proposed first at the time, which was very silly indeed, was adding a
> to associations, but in fact it was going no more no less along the same
lines than scope,
> "source" being just a subtype of "scope".
> What you and others said rightly at the time is that the proper way to
deal with that is
> to attach "source" to the reified association, either as an occurrence, or
> "assertion-source" association. The same argument holds for scope, so we
come to the same
> conclusion indeed ...
> More comments below:
> > I think this is effectively what I said in my small paper on Is Scope
> Is that paper available on-line somewhere?
> > I would like us to try and get some consensus on this idea and put
something into the
> spec to reflect this.
> I would applaud to that - the only thing I can do, until France come back
to sc34 ...
> still a long way to go :((
> > I dont think we need to ditch scope just make it very clear that its a
sloopy way to
> > I think we do this by defining something like the scope assoc example
> > and say 'this is what scope is, but as you can see its not very
> > Users of topics maps will then have all the info about whats really
> > and if they want fairly useless bags of topics then fine, if not we'll
have much better
> It figures we would keep scope there just for backward compatibility, but
> recommend more effective and semantic ways to deal with what scope wants
> through association reification process. If we provide something robust
and effective, I
> suppose old-fashioned non-specified scope would die out slowly by itself,
the same way I
> don't think many people use association members with no role
specification, although they
> are allowed to do so by the standard.
> > I also think this goes hand in hand with ditching the topic naming
> > as a MUST do and introducing typed names instead of scoped names.
> Bernard Vatant
> Consultant - Mondeca
> Chair - OASIS TM PubSubj Technical Committee
> sc34wg3 mailing list