[sc34wg3] Re: FYI: Yet another TMRM Formalization (well, not really)

[Jan Algermissen]

Ann Wrightson wrote:
> 
> Jan said:
> 
> - Interestingly, what you describe is an *Application* of the RM. You
>   define (although implicitly) a set of properties and a certain
>   assertion structure (also only a set of properties as in the
>   assertion structire propsed by the RM). In essence, you defnine
>   a TMA (and operations on the properties provided by this TMA).
> 
> I say:
> 
> Jan, it would help me a lot if you showed exactly how this works. Not all
> the detail, just enough so I can understand how you made the judgement.


Very briefly (not much time, sorry):

The RM defines an abstract information structure: sets of property/value
pairs (with typed values). Everything else is semantics and is inside
a TMA (or schema) definition (property A means this and that, property B
means this and that,...)

The RM itself defines the assertion structure in terms of properties
(that is the annex about all the SIDPs and OPs). In fact, the proposed
assertion structure is actually a 'core' TMA.

Robert also (implicitly) defines roperties when he defines 'members' and
how they form assertions. He defines a property called 'Name' (including
or excluding the 'literals', depending on their significance).

The nice thing about all this is that you get correct merging of assertions
'for free' since it is completely defined by the properties that form
the assertions (A-topics merge if their a-sidp values are equal).

Does that help?

Jan




> Ann W.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org