[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Bernard Vatant]

Hello Nikita

> I am with Lars and Kal on this.

Well ... I thought Kal was with Graham and me. So we are all together?

> In around 70's in USSR people got the notion
> of a new plastic and aluminum millennium and threw away antic and
> highly valued bountiful things of bronze, cupper, silver and even gold.
> Nobody could ever understand russian soul but lets not run after plastic.
> (I hope you know what I mean)

Barely. Has it something to do with "Russian Semiotics" ? ;-)

> Bernard, I do not see your problem:

I'm sad you don't. It's not a problem in fact, just an example.

> "Henry is King of Navarre and King of France from 1589 to 1610"
>
> <association>
>     <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#king-of-a-country"/></instanceOf>
>     <member>
>         <roleSpec><topicRef xlink:href="#role-king"/></roleSpec>
>         <topicRef xlink:href="#henry"/>
>     </member>
>     <member>
>         <roleSpec><topicRef xlink:href="#role-country"/></roleSpec>
>         <topicRef xlink:href="#navarre"/>
>     </member>
> </association>
> <association>
>     <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#king-of-a-country"/></instanceOf>
>     <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#from-1589-to-1610"/></scope>
>     <member>
>         <roleSpec><topicRef xlink:href="#role-king"/></roleSpec>
>         <topicRef xlink:href="#henry"/>
>     </member>
>     <member>
>         <roleSpec><topicRef xlink:href="#role-country"/></roleSpec>
>         <topicRef xlink:href="#france"/>
>     </member>
> </association>

Of course you can express it that way, and many others. I would have done something like
that too ...
I expressed it with scopes just for the illustration. Maybe I could have found something
less far-fetched.

> I was proposing structured scopes two years ago (as I think many others did)
> But that proposal was put on a waiting list.
> Ands I must admit that I had waited quite successfully.

What do you mean exactly by that? I don't think structure of scope is the issue. The issue
is : what is the nature of the relation between the scoping topic and the scoped
association? And IMO this question boils down to specify a role, no more, no less ...

> Lets use scopes for what they are good for (like in Lars's examples for
> example)
> for everything else there are association members.

> For distinguishing roles of scope themes there is the topic  typing
> mechanism.
> (type of topic that plays the role of scope theme).
> Primitive but works.

I don't like it that much. Confusing a type (class) with a role is suboptimal. Again, what
has to be specified is the *role* of each scoping topic in its relation with the
association. And we have a mechanism to do that very accurately and quite simply through
association reification. Why not use it?

Bernard