[sc34wg3] name characteristics (was: SAM-issue term-scope-def)

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Jan Algermissen
> |
> | This is what I referred to when I said that basenames have the
> | semantics of unambiguity. The association between a topic and its
> | basename provides more than just a name (or 'mere name' or 'label')
> | for the topic, it provides an unambiguous name (together with the
> | namespace (scope) of course).
> 
> Careful, now. This is not an "association," as defined by ISO 13250 or
> XTM 1.0 (the two specs you referenced). The Reference Model doesn't
> use that term, either, and I think it is right not to do so.

You are right, let's stick with 'basename assignment'.

 
> | The fact that existing topic map markup languages provide
> 
> You make it sound as if we are about to create new, and radically
> different, topic map models. That is not the case.

Of course not.

> 
> | a convenient way to express topic-basename-characteristics (such as
> | the <baseName> element in XTM) does not prevent you from defining
> | other association types in order to express
> | topic-name-characteristics that do NOT have the semantics of
> | unambiguity (and could therefore be used to avoid
> | topic-naming-contraint-based merges if you do want to use ambigous
> | names, such as acronyms for example)
> 
> We're talking about the SAM here, and there is no way to do this
> within the SAM.

Hhmm, can't you reify any addressable resource (including a string
addressed by an Xpointer expression) with the semantics of the SAM
and use that reified resource in associations (of any type) with
other topics? Thus creating 'your own' topic-label characteristic
assignments ?

> 
> | You could call your association type 'topic-label' and create
> | associations of that type between your topics and the strings that
> | are the labels.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is no way to reliably assert that a topic
> represents a particular string (issue strings-as-subjects), 

Why not ?

> and this
> solution is in any case unacceptable, since it is heavyweight and not
> standardized.

Why is it heavyweight ?

> 
> (This is beginning to sound like a discussion of the TNC. Let's either
> put that off until we have the TNC position papers, or do it in a
> different thread.)

Ok (subject line changed)

Jan
> 
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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