[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Bernard Vatant
|
| So - sorry to repeat myself ...You can't set generic rules for
| scopes, even for scopes on names, because scope assignment can carry
| opposite semantics:
| 
| either "This is one condition in which the assertion is valid" (and
| it might be valid in some others) 

This is what the standard has to say, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
This case is just an example of missing information. That is, the fact
that the topic map fails to say that "economie" is a valid name for
the subject in Samoyed does not mean that it isn't valid.

Similarly, the fact that the association

  premiere(melenis : opera, la-scala : place)

does not appear in the Opera topic map does not mean that Melenis did
not have its premiere in the Teatro alla Scala. (It may have had.
Steve doesn't know, and so the topic map doesn't either.)

| or "This is the only condition in which the assertion has to be
| considered valid"

It is acceptable for applications to assume this, but not for the
standard to do so.
 
| The more I think about it, the less I think we can make general
| sense of scope in a way that could be supported by any kind of
| formal model, because we can't restrict it to be one of the two
| terms of the above alternative, and support both under a single
| concept is contradictory. 

I don't see that as so very problematic. If you do, it would be good
if you could explain why.

| Maybe we need to introduce the notions of "necessary scope" and
| "sufficient scope" after all?

What notions are they? I would be happy if you could introduce them to
me, at least. :)

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