[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Jan Algermissen]

[Marc de Graauw:]
> | Furthermore, I suggest the word 'only' should be dropped. When we
> | say topic name 'economie' is valid in when the scoping topic 'Dutch'
> | applies, we surely do not intend to say this name is valid _only_ in
> | Dutch. What we assert is that it is valid in Dutch, and we do not
> | really say anything about its validity outside this context. (In
> | other words, it is quite possible that other languages use the same
> | word for this topic.)

[Lars:]
> This I am much less convinced about. I fear that if we remove the
> "only" we are weakning the definition to the point where there is no
> real distinction between "and" and "or".
> 
> I also don't think you are really saying "economie" is only valid in
> Dutch. What you are saying is that it is valid in Dutch. It may be
> valid in other contexts, but you aren't saying anything about it, just
> as the concept may have other names in Dutch, but you haven't said
> anything about that either.

Marc, Lars,

I don't think that scoping a <baseName> element asserts anything about
the validity of the name for a particular topic. I think that scoping
a <baseName> element asserts something about the validity of using
a particular name as a base name for the topic and that means that
scoping a <baseName> element asserts something about the validity of
using that name as an unambiguous identifyer for the topic.

Therefore, scoping the topic-basename-characteristic between a topic
and the name 'economie' with the scope {Dutch} does not mean, that 
the name 'economie' is invalid in another scope but that you cannot use
it as an unambigous identifier unless the scope {Dutch} applies.


Does that make sense to you ?

Jan

-- 
Jan Algermissen
Consultant & Programmer

Tel:   ++49 (0)40 89 700 511
       ++49 (0)177 283 1440
Fax:   ++49 (0)40 89 700 841 
Email: algermissen@acm.org
Web:   http://www.topicmapping.com