[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Actually the choice was between
1) on/off "merge" attribute
and
2)introduction of  typed  <label> elements (typed like occurrences with
<instanceOf>).

The former was chosen, although I long hoped for the latter.

Now, if 2) choice were selected you would have:

<topic id="t1">
   <baseName>
      <baseNameString>Mama Cass</baseNameString>
  </baseName>
</topic>
<topic id="t6">
  <label>
      <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#possible-name"/></instanceOf>
      <labelString>Mama Cass</labelString>
 </label>
</topic>

This case is pretty clear, right?
(<labelString> I had invented just now and for the purpose of this example
only)

So is the case that Mark had questioned about.
Just imagine <label> elements in place of <baseName> with merge="off".
A little confusing, but ...

--Nikita.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Algermissen" <algermissen@acm.org>
To: <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes


> Marc de Graauw wrote:
>
> > Also: is this Topic Map (going to be) valid?
> >
> > <topicMap>
> >
> >   <topic id="t1">
> >     <baseName>
> >       <baseNameString merge="on">Mama Cass</baseNameString>
> >     </baseName>
> >   </topic>
> >
> >   <topic id="t6">
> >     <baseName>
> >       <baseNameString merge="off">Mama Cass</baseNameString>
> >     </baseName>
> >   </topic>
> >
> > </topicMap>
>
> How interesting...this raises the question if the
> 'causeTNCbasedMerge'-flag is a property of a) the basename or b) the
> particular association between the topic and its base name.
>
> If it is a) then the above topic map would not be valid I think, because
> a basename would either be triggering a merge or not. This also seems to
> demand that the value of the merge attribute has to be the same for
> all basenames that are equal. But then, isn't it the topic map processor
> that eventually decides how it interpretes 'equal' ? This would then
> lead to a situation where a map might be valid in the context of the
> author (suppose the author thinks of 'char-by-char' equality) but might
> be invalid for some topic map engines (that propably apply a case
insensitive
> interpretation of 'equal')....???
>
>
> If it is b) then the merge attribute should be on the <baseName> element
> and would mean: "whatever other pieces of the map say, don't merge this
> topic with other topics that happen to have the same name (in the same
scope).
>
>
>  Jan
>
>
> > Thanks for clarifying,
>
>
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sc34wg3 mailing list
> > sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> > http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>
>
>
  Nikita Ogievetsky,             Cogitech Inc.
  Topic Maps Tutorials and Consultancy
  nogievet@cogx.com   --   (917) 406-8734
  http://www.cogx.com     Cogito Ergo XML