Index Cards RE: [sc34wg3] Modularization

[Bernard Vatant]

Martin

Your technical remarks are of course relevant, but this was only
intended to be a metaphor ... and a metaphor can not pretend to
technical accuracy :)

Bernard

_____________________________________

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant - Knowledge Engineering
www.mondeca.com
_____________________________________

| -----Original Message-----
| From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org [mailto:sc34wg3-
| admin@isotopicmaps.org] On Behalf Of Martin Bryan
| Sent: lundi 10 f=E9vrier 2003 12:15
| To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
|=20
| Bernard tried to use the library index metaphor for topic maps:
|=20
| > In the simple cosy world of ancient (and not so ancient) libraries,
you
| > had books and index cards. An index card for each book, with title,
| > author, DDC classification, format, ISBN number, date of purchase,
| > current status (available, borrowed by reader X) and so on.
|=20
| The problem with this proposed model is that libraries do not use a
single
| index card: each book has multiple cards, one filed in the author
index,
| one
| in the subject index and perhaps one in the titles index. Also
libraries
| can
| have multiple copies of each referenced book. Note that there can be
many
| authors with the same name (e.g. John Smith), many books with the same
| name
| (e.g. The Holy Bible) and many subjects with the same name (e.g.
carriage)
| which is used in different contexts.
|=20
| So
|=20
| > 1. SLUO : Having exact one-to-one correspondence between one index
card
| > and one book.
|=20
| is not ot valid. The SLUO applies to the subject, not to the object.
Where
| there are multiple occurrences then there is not a one-to-one
| correspondence.
|=20
| > Or, if you have several cards, have a way to merge them.
| > Every good librarian knows how to do that.
|=20
| Again, not valid. A good librarian has to distinguish things that
should
| not
| be merged by applying scope to information. Cards depend on context
for
| their use. A classic problem is whether or not all the titles of a
| particular author should be listed sequentially when there is more
than
| one
| author of a name, or whether all the titles prepared by authors with a
| particular name should be listed alpahbetically without any way of
| identfiying cross relationships.
|=20
| > 2. Assertion of relationships between cards (staples)
| > How do you express in a standard way relationships (associations)
| > between subjects, using formal binding of matching cards?
|=20
| A librarian defines relationships by having standard fields
(roles/type)
| to
| classify data (i.e. using a standardized classification scheme to
define
| the
| relationships between groups of related entries)
|=20
| > 3. Structure, format, content of the cards (what information needs
to be
| > there, under what form, what colour cards need to be, and how you
manage
| > card boxes)
|=20
| We must not forget the three things that distinguish topic maps from
other
| data classification schemes:
|=20
|  - scope
|  - role
|  - the ability to define sets of occurrences (and names) for a single
| topic,
| rather than one-to-one relationships
|=20
| These are our strengths. Without them RDF would suffice.
|=20
| Martin Bryan
|=20
| _______________________________________________
| sc34wg3 mailing list
| sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
| http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3