[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Marc de Graauw]

[Jan Algermissen]
> So, my understanding of a scoped basename is, that it serves as an
unambiguous
> name when the scope applies and that it does not serve as such when the
scope
> does not apply. In other words, the scope expresses the extend of validity
of the
> unambiguity of the name, not the extend of validity of the name alone.
>
I don't see how this reflects what the standard says.
XTM: Scope specifies the extent of the validity of a topic characteristic
assignment. It establishes the context in which a name or an occurrence is
assigned to a given topic...

This says that scope specifies the extent of validity of the *name*, not
just the *unambiguity of the name* as you say. (I do completely agree with
you that it restricts the unambiguity BTW, since XTM still has the TNC.)
ISO13250 says the same.

> When I was thinking about an example for the topic-label association
above,
> I realized that after all, your initial problem isn't solved:
> Suppose I say:
>
> '"tennis" is a label for topic T1 in the scope {English}'
>
> does this imply that 'tennis' is not a valid label for T1 in German ???
> The 'extend of validity' of labaling T1 with 'tennis' is expressed to
> be the scope {English}. Since we can consider {German} to be beyond that
> extend it should be logical to say that 'tennis' is not a valid label
> for T1 in German....
>
> That's rediculous, isn't it ?

That's right. Apparently I didn't explain myself very well. I was triggered
by thinking of 2 Topic Maps:

Topic Map 1:
[T1 = "tennis" / german @"http://www.sport.org/tennis.html"]

Topic Map 2:
[T2 = "tennis" / dutch @"http://www.sport.org/tennis.html"]

These maps seem to contradict each other when we interpret TM 1 as saying
that 'tennis' is a valid basename ONLY when {german} applies, and TM2 says
'tennis' is a valid basename when {dutch} applies and {german} does not.
Since the topics refer to the same subject, this raises the question whether
'tennis' is a valid basename for this subject when {dutch} applies.

The counterintuitivity is caused by the fact that when I write Topic Map 1,
I do not intend to say anything about what is the case when {dutch} applies
at all. I just want to express a fact I know about german: that 'tennis' is
an (unambigious) name for some subject T1. It is counterintuitive if I -
unwillingly - make all sorts of assertions about whether or not 'tennis' is
an (unambigious) name for subject T1 in Dutch. In writing Topic Map 1, I do
not want to say anything about Dutch!

I see 3 ways around this problem:

1) Drop the word 'only' in the SAM. Topic Map 1 does not say anything about
the validity of the basename when {german} does not apply.

2) Distinguish between topic and subject. Topic Map 1 says that 'tennis' is
NOT a valid basename for topic T1 when {german} does not apply, but it does
not say anything about whether 'tennis' is a valid basename for the subject
when  {german} does not apply.

3) Insist that 'tennis' in T1 and T2 are two distinct basenames, not the
same basename. So Topic Map 1 only says something about the basename in
Topic Map 1. This solution did not seem right to me. It is like saying: "My
mother Mieke and my aunt Mieke have different names which contain the same
string". This solution is not ruled out by the Topic Name equality principle
in XTM, though.

> >
> > This brings to light some interesting differences between our standards:
> > ISO13250: topic name = A string of characters specified as a name of a
> > *topic*
> > SAM: A base name is a name or label for a *subject*
> > XTM: A *topic* may have zero or more names
>
> Can you explain what you mean, I do not understand.
>


XTM and 13250 relate names with topics, SAM with relates names with
subjects. I wondered whether this change was intentional and whether there
are any consequences.

Marc