[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Well ... computing is applied math.
XTM is related to computing and some math here is not bad.
I vehemently agree that topic maps have much less to do with logic and
inference than RDF, for example.
But there is certainly some set of axioms that we use to make our judgments.
This set of axioms could be called "Processing Model".
Interestingly enough it sounds that neither RM, nor SAM pretend to cover it.
So may be there is a place for an independent "PM" model that should
answer questions like "what does <two lines are parallel> mean".
Actually at some point I offered a name "tom-tom" for it (theoretical model
for topic maps)
also because construction of some tom-toms resemble graphs - a set of
connected drums.
I think Bernard's questions should be a good start.
TMPM4 was about it, but RM jumped on a lower level (or I am missing
something).

--Nikita

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
To: <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def


>
> * Bernard Vatant
> |
> | I think all the debate is useless until we formally clear out the
> | meaning of several things:
> |
> | 1. What does "A is valid" mean?
> | 2. What does "S applies" mean?
> | 3. What is the logical status of "when"?
>
> Excellent! This brings us another step forward.
>
> I think anything we say about 1 is going to be only so hot air in any
> non-mathemathical specification (and that's what this is). For all
> practical purposes it means "A is seen as true".
>
> 2 and 3 are very interesting, however. What they imply to me is that
> we need to define the notion of a context in which topic
> characteristic assignments are evaluated. They are either considered
> valid (if the scope matches) or invalid (if the scope does not match).
>
> It's not that I disagree with your maths, Bernard, or that I don't
> want to use maths, but I think we need to either have a spec
> completely grounded in maths or completely divorced from it. That's
> why I like this approach: I think it would allow us to clear this up
> in the natural language specification (SAM) and give a future
> mathematical specification something more precise to start from.
>
> Does that make sense to you, Bernard?
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>