[sc34wg3] TNC backward compatibility

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Hi Steve,

Steve wrote:
> At 20:28 04.03.2003 -0800, Nikita wrote:
> >There are some issues related to the backward compatible TNC behavior.
> >
> >1)
> >What happens when baseName is not typed?
> >Is TNC turned on by default? I think YES.
>
> I think NO. The more general case is when a name does NOT belong to
> a controlled vocabulary. It is very natural to specify a type when
> there IS a controlled vocabulary (type="iso639-alpha2"); much less
> natural to do so when there is NOT a controlled vocabulary
> (type="some-artificial-uncontrolled-vocabulary").
>
> So the default should be that the TNC is not turned on by default.

I am staying with YES because otherwise we are not backward compatible.

> My recollection is that we did in fact discuss this in Baltimore and
> came to the same conclusion (which is reflected in the SAM).

Hmmm... I do not remember that.
Would be great if everybody express their opinions on this.

> >2)
> >If base name's type is a controlled vocabulary,
> >should the TNC be turned on along scope axis or controlled vocabulary?
> >
> >In other words, which of the following (if any) should be merged:
> >
> ><baseName id="b1">
> >     <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#cv1"/></instanceOf>
> >     <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#s1"/></scope>
> >     <baseNameString>ABC</baseNameString>
> ></baseName>
> ><baseName id="b2">
> >     <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#cv1"/></instanceOf>
> >     <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#s2"/></scope>
> >     <baseNameString>ABC</baseNameString>
> ></baseName>
> ><baseName id="b3">
> >     <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#cv2"/></instanceOf>
> >     <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#s2"/></scope>
> >     <baseNameString>ABC</baseNameString>
> ></baseName>
> ><baseName id="b4">
> >     <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#s2"/></scope>
> >     <baseNameString>ABC</baseNameString>
> ></baseName>
> ><baseName id="b5">
> >     <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#cv2"/></instanceOf>
> >     <baseNameString>ABC</baseNameString>
> ></baseName>
> ><baseName id="b6">
> >     <baseNameString>ABC</baseNameString>
> ></baseName>
> >
> >I think that we had never discussed this.
>
> That's true.
>
> Assuming cv1 and cv2 are instances of "unique-characteristic" (see
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#sect-name-types), my take
> on this would be:
>
> - b1 and b2 (possibly)
> - b3 and b5 (possibly)
>
> I think the final answer will depend on how we settle the scope
> interpretation issues in SAM 3.4.3.

Probably I tend to agree with Lars that neither one merges.

> >3)
> >Should TNC be turned on for occurrence elements if they are of controlled
> >vocabulary type?
>
> Yes. Except we should stop talking about "TNC" and find a better name for
> what otherwise might be called "SIDP-based merging". Maybe "property-based
> merging" is sufficient?
>
> By the way, the phrase "controlled vocabulary type" is a bit constricting.
> The PSI defined in the SAM has the following identifier:
>
>    http://psi.topicmaps.org/sam/1.0/#unique-characteristic
>
> so I suggest we talk about "unique characteristic types" instead.

Yes, I remember that. That also allows us to use scopes on
subjectIndicators.
I am asking this question again because in this case subjectIdentity
becomes syntactic sugar as we can use occurrences instead.
I just want to make sure that everybody understand these consequences.

--Nikita.

Nikita Ogievetsky, nogievet@cogx.com;
Cogitech Inc.        http://www.cogx.com
Topic Maps Tutorials and Consulting.
phone:  1 (917) 406 - 8734