<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 23-Nov-09, at 1:19 PM, Steve Newcomb wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You're really raising the issue now of whether we add a rule to TMCL stating that the same association role type cannot be used in more than one association type. (Ironically, if we do we'll have to redo the entire TMCL ontology.)<br></blockquote>Seems like a high price, doesn't it? Of course I'm arguing that the price should be paid, but it's easy for me to argue for improvement because the existing investments in that ontology were not made by me. (I personally would rather be correct than rich, but I recognize that there are other arguably-valid attitudes about that kind of question, and poverty has little to recommend it.)<br><br>This seems like a pretty fundamental question to me. Is there no other way forward? How important is one-subject-per-topic to the community? How important is it that Topic Maps has a shared understanding of the semantics of associations, and the semantics of association types, as being relationships and kinds of relationships, respectively? These things are very important to me, but not necessarily important to others.<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Alternative approach can be in different TMDM to TMRM mapping.</div><div><br></div><div>TMDM Association type + TMDM Association Role Type1 + TMDM Association Role Type2 -> TMRM Association type</div><div><br></div><div><div>TMDM Association type + TMDM Association Role Type1 -> TMRM Association Role Type 1</div><div><br></div><div><div>TMDM Association type + TMDM Association Role Type2 -> TMRM Association Role Type 2</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>For example,</div><div><br></div><div>TMDM level</div><div><br></div><div>transaction (<br>buyer: * ,<br>seller: *,<br>value_from_buyer_to_seller: *,<br>value_from_seller_to_buyer: *<br>)</div><div><br></div><div>at TMRM level can look like this</div><div><br></div><div>transaction_buyer_seller_value_from_buyer_to_seller_value_from_seller_to_buyer (</div><div>buyer_in_transaction_buyer_seller_value_from_buyer_to_seller_value_from_seller_to_buyer: * ,</div><div>seller_in_transaction_buyer_seller_value_from_buyer_to_seller_value_from_seller_to_buyer: *,</div><div>value_from_buyer_to_seller_in_transaction_buyer_seller_value_from_buyer_to_seller_value_from_seller_to_buyer: *,</div><div>value_from_seller_to_buyer_in_transaction_buyer_seller_value_from_buyer_to_seller_value_from_seller_to_buyer: *</div><div>)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This approach allows to be 'user friendly' on TMDM level and strict at TMRM level.</div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Dmitry</div></body></html>