[sc34wg3] occurrence - basename fuzzy boarder
Geir Ove Grønmo
18 Feb 2003 10:19:44 +0100
This thread is a bit old, but there is an issue I believe we never
"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?
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.