[sc34wg3] RE: [topicmapmail] association source

[Graham Moore]

I think its similiar but we have often encouraged customers to create =
assocs with occurrences. If I have two topics bart and lisa - then I can =
have an occurrence from each to aresource. If however, I an association =
between bart and lisa and type it, perhaps 'Bart Loves Lisa' then I have =
expressed something more useful. If that association then has an =
occurrence to the image of 'bart loving lisa' then I have greatly =
improved the quality of the topicmap. What does 'improve quality mean' =
well in the firts model if I wanted all images of bart and lisa I'd have =
to compare all occurs of both topics for equality, using this approach =
we make assertions or statements about what is occuring in documents and =
not just topics that happen to be kicking around in them.

So, with that I ask do we need something new or do occurrences on Assocs =
solve the problem.=20

I think for what you suggest it would not be adequote, but given that in =
the RM Topics are associations and in the SAM and XTM assocs can be =
reified by topics - they can have the identity properties you require.

So my summary occurrences on assocs generally improve the quality of the =
topic map, the fact that assocs (by one of several ways - depending on =
your chosen model) can have topic identity properties addresses, I =
believe, Bernards requirement.

graham

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
Sent: 15 May 2002 04:01
To: TopicMapMail
Cc: SC34 WG3
Subject: [topicmapmail] association source


To put on the table for XTM 2.0 maybe ...

I had this remark last week when working with an industrial customer on =
a TM model.

"I do not want associations in the TM that are not validated by some =
document"

In an industrial context, that makes sense. The TM information expressed =
by (or asserted
in) associations is essentially extracted from documents (by humans or =
automatic tools).
And if it is not, it has to be validated by some authentified source.

That led me to that kind of idea so simple that you wonder why nobody =
did express it
before :))

1. Every association is an assertion.
2. A valid assertion should mention its source (document, author, =
authority ...)
3. Therefore an association should (be able to) mention its source.

This is quite different from scope, although one should be tempted to =
include the source
in a <scope> element. It is possible to attach the source as either a =
specific occurrence
type to the reified association, or to create a specific role in the =
association, or to
link the reified association to a topic representing the source by a =
specific
(meta)association. Too many ways in fact, when thinking about =
interoperability. The notion
of source being very specific, and very important, it would be good to =
have a standard way
to express it, cast in the specification stone itself.

It would be very useful and backward-compatible to include an optional =
<source> element
under <association>
The child elements of <source> being the same ones as those of =
<subjectIdentity>

<topicRef> to be used if the source is represented by a topic
<resourceRef> to be used if the source is a document
<subjectIndicatorRef> to be used if the source is a Published Subject

Comments welcome ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Vatant
Consultant - Mondeca
www.mondeca.com
Chair - OASIS TM PubSubj Technical Committee
www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/
-------------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail@infoloom.com
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service.