[tmql-wg] Every thing is a 'thing'
rho at bigpond.net.au
Fri Mar 9 17:52:57 EST 2007
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:59:17PM +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Robert Barta
> >Right. Or we could take the viewpoint that
> > where
> > $thing isa tm:topic
> >gives all topics and
> The trouble with this one is that if we return the "drrho" topic here
> we claim that you are a topic, but as far as I know you're actually
> *not* part of any topic map, but rather a living, breathing person.
> So that would be semantically wrong. :-/
You now completely derailed me :-)
Under tm:topic [ TMDM interpretation ] I understood
symbol used within a topic map to represent one, and only one,
subject, in order to allow statements to be made about the subject
where $thing isa tm:topic
I will never get a living, breathing person, but only 'symbols within
a topic map to...'. And in TMQL-land this is the topic item.
> The easiest type of question on earth is questions of the form
> "Is X a 'subject' in the Topic Maps sense?"
> The answer is always the same: yes. (Just read the definition.)
> Values are subjects, you are a subject, the question of whether
> values are subjects is a subject, the bottle of beer next to my
> laptop is a subject, Topic Maps is a subject, ... "Any thing
> whatsoever," right?
OK, if 'everything' in the universe is meant, then a query for it is
probably useless inside a TMQL query. I would hate it as a person if I
would be have to be passed through a Java interface. I do not like
Maybe ask the other way round: Do we have a term for 'all items in the
topic map'? Not necessarily including the data values, which are not
_items_ according to TMDM.
> >>> ? Should all map items be an instance of tm:subject implicitly
> >>> + tm:subject is a great placeholder
> >>> - TMDM does not say it (or does it?)
> >>Whooops. Does this mean that you intend for it to be (2)?
> >I'm just asking. If atomic values _are_ subjects, then it would be
> >(2), right? And if not, then probably (3), I guess.
> You mean the other way around, right?
Hehehe, it seems that we have to work on the semantic grounding of
Topic Maps :-)))
> Anyway, the question here isn't just what the semantics are, but also
> what we *want*. And I think we want something that produces all
> topics, period.
Yes we need something for
- all items in the map (tm:subject??? not sooo good)
- all topics (tm:topic)
- all assocs (tm:association)
- all names (tm:name)
- all occurrences (tm:occurrence)
- maybe all 'names+occurrences' (?????)
- something else?
Have to break here and will come back to the rest later.
> >The question is what should
> > (a) select $x where $x isa tm:subject
> I think I prefer (1), which was "all topics", on the grounds that
> - "isa" is an association, and associations only apply to topics,
> - the set of all topics is what we want, anyway.
> > (b) select $x where $x iko tm:subject
> This is the subclasses of tm:subject, right? In that case it should
> be all topic types. (Although it *could* be all types.)
> >I think we shortly touched this one in Leipzig, but I am unsure
> >whether this was followed up by anyone:
> > - is an association a specialization of subject?
> Yes. (Association is a type, therefore it is a subtype of the
> universal type, which is subject.)
> > - is a topic a specialization of subject?
> > - is an occurrence (and a name) a specialization of association?
> That's spelled out in TMDM. (And the answer is yes.)
> >Things like these. So something like an "Ur-Ontology" for TMDM. I
> >faintly remember that you had a blog entry in this direction but
> >cannot reproduce it now.
> >But once this is written somewhere (TMDM, TMRM, TMQL), then we would
> >have a commitment.
> This is the stuff I'm meant to put into the TMDM -> TMRM mapping.
> --Lars M.
> tmql-wg mailing list
> tmql-wg at isotopicmaps.org
More information about the tmql-wg