[sc34wg3] Mathematical model (was SAM-issue term-scope-def)

[Lars Marius Garshol]

(Note subject change. :)

* Nikita Ogievetsky
|
| Well ... computing is applied math.
| XTM is related to computing and some math here is not bad.

I agree completely. That doesn't mean that SAM/RM have to be
mathemathical, but there *is* room for a mathematical model.

A model theory sounds good, but I know we have some graph-heads in the
room, and I'm not really competent to judge which will better serve
our needs. Attempts to enlighten me on the issue are welcome, of
course. :)

| I vehemently agree that topic maps have much less to do with logic
| and inference than RDF, for example.

Is that because we've tended to see it that way, or is it inherent in
topic maps? I don't know, to be honest.

| 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.

That is true. The PMTM4 proponents have made "this-is-a-graph-and-
therefore-maths"-like noises in the past, but I'm not sure if they
would make the same claim of the RM.

The SAM is clearly not a maths model, and I think it is better for it
not to be. That leaves the ground free for one (or more) mathematical
model(s) and at the same time gives them something to build on that is
a level above the syntaxes.

Should a mathematical model build on SAM or the RM? I don't know. For
all I know it may be the bridge between them.

It may be that the time for WG3 to decide that there will be a
mathematical model has come. Or it may be that we should wait for a
volunteer. It should be discussed, anyway.

Well. My 0.02 NOK, anyway.

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