[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Jan Algermissen
| 
| I don't think that scoping a <baseName> element asserts anything
| about the validity of the name for a particular topic. 

That's not how I read the XTM 1.0 specification. The first paragraph
of Section 2.2.1.6[1] describes scope as limiting the validity of
"topic characteristic assignments," which clearly includes base names.

ISO 13250 uses much the same words, to what seems to me the same
effect. 

| 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.

The second paragraph of Section 2.2.1.6 says more-or-less what you say
here, but I think it is pretty clear that the first paragraph says
what I said.
 
| 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 ?

Yes, it does. I think you premise is false, but that the conclusion is
right. :)

I explained in another email that I think you can't infer from

  [economy = "economie" / dutch]

that the name "economie" might not be used for this concept in other
languages than Dutch. All you know is that the topic map author didn't
say it was so, but the author might be unaware that it is possible,
might not have completed the topic map yet, and so on.

So I think we agree on everything here, except your first paragraph
above. 

[1] <URL: http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#desc-scope >

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