[sc34wg3] occurrence - basename fuzzy boarder

Geir Ove Grønmo sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
18 Feb 2003 10:19:44 +0100

This thread is a bit old, but there is an issue I believe we never
really resolved:

  "Should occurrences have variants?"

I think they should. The argument is that occurrences reference
information resources, and that they can have alternative renditions
applicable in different contexts. 


  - images in various resolutions (e.g. thumbnails)
  - monochrome vs. color images
  - documents in different formats (e.g. PDF vs. HTML), 
  - reversed sound
  - text written in different languages etc.
  - sort keys (e.g. chronological)

What are the arguments for them _not_ having variants?

Geir O.

PS. SAM editors, could you please add this as an issue in

* Geir Ove Grønmo
| * Martin Bryan
| | Re (on the IRC chat line): the reason is that i've never really understood
| | the reason why basenames and occurrence have to be different.
| | 
| | The main reason for the difference was the merging and TNC: Base names could
| | be merged, occurrences couldn't. 
| That's ok, but I still don't understand why they need to have
| different structures.
| | Once you had split out base names it made sense to put the other
| | naming things, related to variant (view specific) display and
| | sorting, within the same area (topicname) rather than within the
| | other occurrences.
| Why do you consider variants as being restricted to topic names? In my
| opinion is has to do with rendition of information resources in
| general - not just names. Occurrences are renderable in the same way
| names are, and I believe the Topic Maps standard should allow this.
| IMO occurrences and basenames should have the same structure. This
| includes occurrences having variants, basenames having type and
| basenames having locators. Whether they should be separate item types in
| SAM or not I'm not entirely sure about. Keeping them as two item types
| is probably ok.