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

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Lars Marius Garshol

> * 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.

Yes, that exactly what I meant.

> 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. :)

May be even "axiomatic model"?
I think, that the set of topic map axioms should be expressed in some very
basic terms.
I am not sure that graph theory should used for it.
I may be not right, but it seams that graphs
do not provide answer to everything.
However they are very good at visualizing those answers.
(and may be even in guessing those answers)
Well... do not want to insist.

> | 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.

If we just tend to see it this way then lets just all switch to RDF.

> | 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.

As far as I understand, RM is also a graph but on an even lower level.

> 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.

Agree. I also think that we will be more ready to talk about math model
only after we all are in agreement about RM and SAM.


--Nikita.