De-overloading scope WAS(Re: [sc34wg3] Question on TNC / Montreal minutes)

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Marc de Graauw
| 
| I think making the TNC optional in the right way might solve this
| problem of overloaded scope we have now. 

I agree completely, and I think the solution is to layer it into TMCL,
so that base name scopes no longer carry any connotations of
"namespace"-ness with them. That would leave base name scopes free to
be pure scopes, yet allow applications to decide that in certain cases
merging by scope would be acceptable.

| When we look at the situation with the TNC and merging, there are
| actually three relevant possibilities:
| 
| 1) Apply the TNC within a Topic Map and with merging
| 2) Apply the TNC within a Topic Map but not with merging
| 3) Never apply the TNC

Well, there are also lots of others. What is it you intend with 2)?
How can you apply the TNC without doing merging?
 
| If we look at the 'namespace' aspect of scope, that maps neatly onto
| 1). If we have a namespace, we are involved in a systematic approach
| to names, we are making a controlled vocabulary in which each name
| is unique and establishes subject identity. When we do this, we want
| to apply the TNC (for this particular namespace) within any Topic
| Map which uses this namespace and when merging (again only for this
| particular namespace).

What you write here implies that in your view certain scopes *are*
"namespaces" or controlled vocabularies, and that the TNC should apply
within these. I think that makes sense, but I am not at all certain
that the TNC advocates agree. (Unfortunately, they are not active on
this list at the moment...)
 
| When we look at the 'contextual validity' aspect of scope, where we
| do not want/need to establish a namespace, the situation is
| different. We provide extra information with a topic to give the
| end-user contextual information (or filter information on behalf of
| the user), i.e. 'Paris' {France} versus 'Paris' {Texas}, 

Actually, I think this particular example is just misinformed. I
wouldn't use scope in this way.

| or 'rose' {English} and 'roos' {Dutch} etc. 

This, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >