[sc34wg3] RM4TM SLUO : Objective or Requirement?

[Sam Hunting]

<snip>

[Marc de Graauuw] 
> > I completely agree. SLUO can never be more than a (very important) design
> > guideline. One can never be sure subjects are actually represented by only one
> > node (topic) since human knowledge is only partial...

(See previous comments on the distinctino between Objective (the O in
SLUO) and design guidelines.)


Jan makes an important point:

[jan algermissen]
> A quick comment on this issue:
> 
> Subject Identity Discrimination Properties allow the RM (an RM
> conformant application) to determine whether two nodes 'have the same
> subject' by comparing the values of their SIDPs according to the rules
> defined in the governing TM Application Definition (for example the SAM).
> 
> If the result of this comparision is that the nodes represent the
> same subject, the RM requires the nodes to be merged. It does not
> require the nodes to be merged if 'subject equality' cannot be
> calculated on the basis of the SIDP values and their semantics
> as defined in the application definition.

We could think of the RM as enabling applications to provide operational
definitions of what it means for nodes 'to have a subject' or for two
nodes to 'have the same subject.' 



Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------