[sc34wg3] TM Data Model issue: prop-subj-address-values

[Graham Moore]

Actually what I was trying to get at for this discussion was that its
possible for one topic to have subject identifiers that reference =
different
subject indictators.  i.e. the topic is a representation (erroneously) =
for
more than one subject. The point is that while its not desirable to have
conflicting subj inds for a topic - it can happen. My argument therefor =
is
that it is valid for a resource to be accessed by different URIs an in =
some
cases this will - like conflicting subj inds - be erroneous.

gra


----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Moore, Ontopian            moore@ontopia.net
GSM: +47 926 82 437           http://www.ontopia.net


-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org =
[mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Pepper
Sent: 03 November 2003 15:20
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org

Graham wrote:
=20
| Kal wrote:
|=20
| >> FACT: 1 topic can only represent one subject
|=20
| No, 1 topic *should* represent one subject but as we know the SLUO is=20
| not achievable.

I disagree. A (single) topic always represents a single subject *by
definition*. (Of course, that might be a complex subject, like "The =
members
of WG3", but it's still a single subject.)

A single subject, on the other hand, may be represented by multiple =
topics.
Within a single topic map we try to avoid this, in order to achieve =
subject
collocation (aka SLUO), but we cannot guarantee that we always succeed.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Chief Executive Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
=20
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3