[sc34wg3] SAM-issue psi-generics (was: SAM-issue term-scope-def)

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| This is where we don't agree at all. Either M represents Marc, or it
| represents the topic "Marc".

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| No! 

You have to straighten yourself out on this, Bernard. M can be a topic
without representing one, and that is the case here.

| M *is* a topic, and M *represents* the subject Marc-out-there.

That is true. That also means that M does *not* represent a topic; it
represents a person. Since a topic can only have a single subject, and
"topic X" and "person Marc" are clearly different subjects, it follows
that M cannot represent both. (What X represents here is immaterial.)

| M1 is also a topic, representing the subject M, (which happens to be
| a serialized topic, but we don't care).
|
| The subject Marc-out-there, the topic M representing the subject
| Marc, and the topic M1 representing the subject M, are three
| different animals. Only the two formal ones, M and M1, we have to
| care of in the model.

This is all fine.

| All the point of making a model is to be able to set formal
| assertions about formal objects, and forget about whatever subjects
| they represent *are* or *mean*.

"Forget" is a bit strong, but, yes.

Unfortunately, Bernard, you skipped the important part of my posting.
Please read it again below, and this time consider it carefully. It's
the heart of what I am trying to say, and I really feel I can say it
no better. So please follow the logic below, and tell me where I go
wrong, in your view.

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Note that there are two levels here:
| 
|   1. The topic map level: The topic representing Marc has an
|   association with the topic representing Marc's wife.
| 
|   2. The subject level: Marc has a relationship (marriage) to his
|   wife.
| 
| Clearly 
| 
|   marriage(marc : husband, marcs-wife : wife)
| 
| is an instance of 1. representing 2. And just as clearly, at the
| subject level it is a statement about Marc, and not about the topic
| "Marc".
| 
| Perhaps this becomes even clearer if we say
| 
|   [marc : person]
| 
| We've now said that Marc is an instance of person. Clearly, we are
| talking about the subject, not the topic. So if we also say
| 
|   [marc : topic]
| 
| we are lying.
| 
| Of course, if we were to create
| 
|   [marc-topic]
| 
| then we couldn't say
| 
|   [marc-topic : person]
| 
| because the subject of this topic isn't a person but a topic. What we
| can say is
| 
|   [marc-topic : topic]
| 
| Now, if it is false to say that [marc-topic : person], why isn't it
| false to say [marc : topic]? 

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