[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Jan Algermissen]

Bernard Vatant wrote:

> Now if "when" is understood as "if and only if", we would have (for all k, Vk belongs to
> Sk) <=> A
> But that seems not sustainable, because asserting the validity in a scope does not infer
> anything of the validity in other scopes, as "tennis" example clearly shows.

Another thing to note on this issue:

Suppose I want to add to the 'tennis' example the information that 'tennis' is also
a valid basename (let's not use 'label' now) in the scope {German}:

<topic id="t1">
  <baseName>
    <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#en" /></scope>
    <baseNameString>tennis</baseNameString>
  </baseName>
  <baseName>
    <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#de" /></scope>
    <baseNameString>tennis</baseNameString>
  </baseName>
</topic>

I have now scoped the topic-basename association between t1
and the basename 'tennis' with the scopes S1 = {English}
S2 = {German}. Because this makes sense (IMHO) logically
and since it is possible technically I can't see how we could
keep the definition that 'scope expresses the extend of validity
of an assertion'. In other words, I could have *several* extends
of validity of an assertion and it does not make sense to me
to use the 'if and only if' interpretation any more.

So, I agree that an understanding like 'an assertion is *known to
be* valid in a certain context' is the better way to go.

> Enough maths for today ... Hope that helps ...

Still digesting that part ;-)

Jan
> 
> Bernard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen
Consultant & Programmer

Tel:   ++49 (0)40 89 700 511
       ++49 (0)177 283 1440
Fax:   ++49 (0)40 89 700 841 
Email: algermissen@acm.org
Web:   http://www.topicmapping.com