[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Martin Bryan
| 
| A change from the 13250 definition of "a given scope is the union of
| the sujects of the set of themes used to specify the scope" to one
| where the intersection is used would be a mistake.

That is just an assertion, though. Could you say *why* you think it
would be a mistake?
 
| The use of "all of the topics in a topic map" as the definition of a
| unconstrained scope was a clear recognition of the fact that any of
| the currently defined topics could, at some stage, be used to scope
| any other topic.

That makes sense, but as Marc explained very clearly at the beginning
of the previous thread, this solution has serious problems.
 
| What I would suggest is that we should have said that unconstrained
| scope was the union of all topics currently used as scopes. Yet no
| one seems to have listed this as a possible alternative definition.

We could do that, but it would mean that

 a) the unconstrained scope changes every time a new theme is added to
    a scope, and

 b) it would be subject to exactly the same problem that Marc
    described. 

So I don't think that is a viable solution.

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