[sc34wg3] Use cases for occurrence variants

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Murray Altheim wrote:
> In the case of <occurrence>, the <resourceRef> or <resourceData>
> *is* the occurrence,

Not at all. They represent resources playing role in occurrence assertion
with the topic.

> whereas in <variant> the <resourceRef> or
> <resourceData> is not the variant, but its name.

I see what you mean but ...
They play "name variant" role in the variant assertion with a baseName...
I do not see the need for a wrapper. It was like that back in TMPM4.

> Same thing
> with <member>: the <resourceRef> or <resourceData> *is* association
> member. Semantically this seems correct.

Sure. But we are talking about syntax.
Semantically anything can be correct when you find a proper interpretation.

>
> > 2) Remove syntactic sugar of <variant> nesting.
> >
...
> I've heard the phrase "syntactic sugar" used as a pejorative for
> any markup deemed by someone unnecessary or simply a convenience.
> In this case, there is no sugar, only the addition of making
> explicit what the reference is for.

Murray, I had mentioned, this "syntactic sugar" interpretation
of nested variants goes back to TMPM4 and if I remember it correctly I got
it from Steve N almost immediately after the XTM 1.0 was published.
It works for me. Especially because nested structures seams to be against
the
very notion of topic maps. As Lars says it is also modeled this way in SAM.
Lastly, if you want to say something about variant assertion
(which is a very exotic case) - reify it.

Having said all that ... where did you see that I am calling for changes to
XTM1.0? I am not, sorry if I made that impression.
However I believe that it is very important to collect all thoughts and
requirements for the next XTM version before it is released
(which may be in a year or two or more).
By the way I probably belong to the minority of people who deals with
syntax directly (using XSLT, etc.) and for this reason it does appeal to me
to
brings syntax closer to the underlying model(s).

Murray Altheim wrote:
> I don't see any of these as bugs.

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
| I would tend to agree. Warts, yes. Bugs, no.

Ditto.

--Nikita.

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