[sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes

[Patrick Durusau]

Steve,

Steve Pepper wrote:

> At 00:17 07/09/02 +0200, Marc wrote:

<snip>

>
>> I think it would be a big mistake to leave the TNC up to 
>> applications. The TNC
>> supports some very generic behaviours that merit a place in the 
>> standard. As I
>> have said before, I do agree the TNC should be optional (and at level 
>> (2)).
>
>
> [(2) being the level of individual scopes.] My mind is not yet made up on
> this. I guess the main reason I'm holding back on both (1) [level of 
> the topic
> map itself] and (2) is that I would really like to decouple the 
> 'namespace'
> aspect of scope and the 'contextual validity' aspect of scope. Mixing the
> two already tends to cause choas and confusion, and this will get 
> worse when
> the time comes (as I believe it will) to make scope more expressive.

I don't understand the distinction you are making between 'namespace' 
aspect of scope and the 'contextual validity' aspect of scope. Can you 
say more about that distinction or how I would distinguish one from the 
other?

Along the same lines, are there any authoring practices or topic map 
software that would support my making that distinction (after I 
understand its nature)?

I have an uneasy feeling that there is a distinction but can't formulate 
a more meaningful statement other than "tell me more..."

Thanks!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu