[sc34wg3] Disentangling 'scope', 'context' and 'applies'

[Martin Bryan]

Marc

> | Just a few (carefully edited) reminders from the definition of scope in
> | 13250:
> |
> | Scope
> | The extent of the validity of a topic characteristic assignment:
> | the context in which a name or an occurrence is assigned to a given
topic;
> | the context in which topics are related through associations.
>
> Quite right. One thing I started wondering about is whether those two
parts are
> the same or distinct.

I think they are the same: the context defines the extent of vaidity

> The 'extent of validity' suggests an exact, formal notion: within the
scope an
> assignment is valid, outside the scope not (or: not known to be valid).
The
> 'context in which ...' suggests a much looser intention: contextual
information,
> meta-information, extra information that might be of relevance...

To me context is "The extent of validty": it is metadata about where
(extent) the name, occurrence or association should be considered valid.

[snip]
> So in natural language contexts (outside Topic Maps), there is a
difference in
> use of 'extent of validity' and 'context'.

Don't confuse reason for validity (e.g. drunkeness) from place in which
validity applies (e.g. in mathematics). Extent is about limiting the places
(or time) in which something is valid. What appears valid in a pub is not
necessarily valid at work :-)

> ISO 13250:2000 seems to say those two things are equivalent due to the
colon
> between the definitions. I just wonder whether there is not a certain
tension
> between the two definitions, and whether this does not lead to two uses of
scope
> which are not entirely reconcilable.

I don't see any tension. I think of it it terms of dictionaries. If a term
has two uses then some form of differentiation is needed. Either you assign
it to a domain (scope), or you give it a number to differentiate it from
other uses of the term. Either of these defines a context in which the term
is "used".

> As several people have already noted, scope
> is used for very different things in practive. As you can see, I am not
very
> certain on these issues and would like any feedback. You were there. Did
you
> (and the others) mean that 'extent of validity ...' is equivalent to 'the
> context in which ...', or should we not read this so strict, more as:
scope can
> be used as an extent of validity, or as a context in which ...

I meant extent of validity to mean "the context(s) in which this
name/occurrence/association can be considered to be relevant"

Martin Bryan