[sc34wg3] draft Reference Model

[Steven R. Newcomb]

"H. Holger Rath" <holger.rath@empolis.com> writes:

> When I follow your wording precisely it means for me
> that the AP arc should be an AT arc as long as the
> type node has been asserted to have one or more
> roles. And a P-node should be a T-node for the same
> reason. And AT arc becomes AP arc and T-node becomes
> P-node in that very moment when we add that the
> type/pattern has asserted roles.

Yes, but I don't understand why we need two different
arc types.  An assertion pattern is still an assertion
type.  The only difference is that if it's a pattern,
we know more about it -- its subject is more precisely
defined.  

Maybe we should just rename the AP arc "AT", with the
"T" standing for "type".  In fact, we thought about
naming it "AT" in the draft, but we rejected the idea
because the term "t-node" would now mean "assertion
type node", instead of what it used to mean in PMTM4
(the now-uselessly-redundant term "topic node"), and
using the same term with a new meaning would confuse at
least some people who have been exposed to PMTM4.

> > Patrick Durusau suggests that maybe it can remain
> > in the Reference Model, but be informative, rather
> > than normative.  Does that approach work for you?

> Even [as] I argue against the assertion patterns in
> the RM I am still open to be convinced that it is
> necessary.  I am thinking black-or-white here: means
> either it is in the RM (for good reasons) or it is
> not in (for good reasons). It is our job as a
> standards committee to discuss the pros and cons and
> to come to a conclusion.

OK.

[snip]

> The next text and diagram explained every thing very
> good!  I am still not convinced, but would like to
> learn more about the pattern.

> How would the diagram look like when we would define
> that the second role of the "medical qualification"
> assertion type/pattern is "MD degree holder" with the
> RPC "Person"? It would be a second assertion of type
> assertionPattern-role-rolePlayerConstraints, right?

Right.

> If it works like this I think I fully understand it
> now.

I, too, think we're both on the same page now.

[snip]

> How do we pass the pattern approach from RM through
> SAM to TMCL. I just don't know if Lars Marius and
> Graham (want to) cover with this issue.

We all have lots to talk about between now and
Barcelona.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

Coolheads Consulting
http://www.coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA