[sc34wg3] occurrence - basename fuzzy boarder

[Ann Wrightson]

IMO this as stated is a new concept, and should be judged as such. As =
Murray points out, it is not supported as such in XTM. If (but only if) =
that is enough to kill it, then let it be dead.

For my part, I had assumed (without much thought) that the underlying =
requirement would be met by a use of scope - since it seems reasonable =
to me that an occurrence of a topic could be characterized as having =
that "context of validity" in which it was usable/visible/accessible...

Ann W.

-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Ove Gr=F8nmo [mailto:grove@ontopia.net]=20
Sent: 18 February 2003 09:20
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] occurrence - basename fuzzy boarder



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.=20

Examples:=20

  - images in various resolutions (e.g. thumbnails)
  - monochrome vs. color images
  - documents in different formats (e.g. PDF vs. HTML),=20
  - 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 =
tm-standards.xtm?

* Geir Ove Gr=F8nmo
| * Martin Bryan
| | Re (on the IRC chat line): the reason is that i've never really=20
| | understood the reason why basenames and occurrence have to be=20
| | different.
| |=20
| | The main reason for the difference was the merging and TNC: Base=20
| | names could be merged, occurrences couldn't.
|=20
| That's ok, but I still don't understand why they need to have=20
| different structures.
|=20
| | Once you had split out base names it made sense to put the other=20
| | naming things, related to variant (view specific) display and=20
| | sorting, within the same area (topicname) rather than within the=20
| | other occurrences.
|=20
| Why do you consider variants as being restricted to topic names? In my =

| opinion is has to do with rendition of information resources in=20
| general - not just names. Occurrences are renderable in the same way=20
| names are, and I believe the Topic Maps standard should allow this.
|=20
| IMO occurrences and basenames should have the same structure. This=20
| includes occurrences having variants, basenames having type and=20
| basenames having locators. Whether they should be separate item types=20
| in SAM or not I'm not entirely sure about. Keeping them as two item=20
| types is probably ok.
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org =
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3