[sc34wg3] Draft Reference Model

[Sam Hunting]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Marc de Graauw wrote:

> * Graham Moore
> 
> | I think we came to some consensus in montreal that scope is no more than
> | untyped associations between an association and a set of topics.
> 
> I wasn't in Montreal and wouldn't know about the decisions there. But I
> wouldn't object to this conclusion at all, only I wouldn't say scope is an
> _untyped_ association, just that it is not explicitly typed in the syntax. The
> implicit type of the association of course would be "extent of validity" as
> ISO 13250:2000 and XTM say.

Not sure I understand this.

The assertion derived from such an association would be *explicitly*
typed, would it not?

3.6.4.1.2 in the RM permits "untyped" assertions -- while it may be that
all scopes are untyped associations between an association and a set of
topics, does it the reverse statement hold -- that all untyped
associations between an association and a set of topics are scoped?

(Note also that the RM can be used to give an operatioanl definition of
"extent" in terms of graph constructs.)





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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------