[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Bernard Vatant]

* Nikita

> Well ... computing is applied math.

It should be at least ... sounds like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... good
to recall it from time to time, just to figure that nobody applies it in real life :(

> XTM is related to computing and some math here is not bad.

Good to find support here from a true scientist :))

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

Well, I tend to agree with Lars Marius that is mainly historical, because people who built
RDF come basically from AI and logic community, so they care much more about it. But Topic
Maps will need logic and inference at a point. That's what TMCL and TMQL are about, and we
need that badly. If we say that TM have nothing to do with logic and inference, we shoot
ourselves in the feet, and will never be heard from the above-quoted community. Any
knowledge representation sytem needs some logical foundation at some point (hmm ... that
sounds like John Sowa, I should stop here)

> But there is certainly some set of axioms that we use to make our judgments.

Hear, hear. We need a topic map Euclides.

> This set of axioms could be called "Processing Model".

What has it to do with processing? Let's call things by their name. This is a Formal Model

> Interestingly enough it sounds that neither RM, nor SAM pretend to cover it.

SAM does not, it's clear. I thought that was the purpose of Reference Model, but maybe I
was misled.

> So may be there is a place for an independent "PM" model that should
> answer questions like "what does <two lines are parallel> mean".

Yes, if "meaning" means
-- Formal definition of primitive objects
-- Formal definition of relationships between those objects
-- Formal definition of rules for those relationships

... what formal logic people call "semantics", I wonder why, because formal definitions
are useful just because there can't ever be any agreement on meaning :)

> Actually at some point I offered a name "tom-tom" for it (theoretical model
> for topic maps)

I buy this one! Is www.tomtom.org available?
> also because construction of some tom-toms resemble graphs - a set of
> connected drums.

Basically, rarely more than half a dozen of them. Maybe we don't need larger TM after all
:)

> I think Bernard's questions should be a good start.

That's basically what I am good at - asking relevant questions, hoping others will answer
them.

> TMPM4 was about it, but RM jumped on a lower level (or I am missing
> something).

What do you mean a "lower level"? It figures nobody is much eager to support RM any more
... Are Steve and Michel still around?

Bernard