[sc34wg3] Documenting merging rules in TMDM .. and unmerging too

[Bernard Vatant]

Ann

Declarative semantics vs operational semantics of "sameness" is exactly what I am about.
Thanks for having put names on those subjects :))

And to answer the final (BV?), yes, my view is that the standard should define the
declarative semantics (subject identity), and be agnostic about the operational ones
(merging, mapping, whatever). Although it could provide non-normative best practices about
the latter.

Bernard


Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
> [mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]De la part de Ann Wrightson
> Envoye : mardi 16 mars 2004 11:21
> A : sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Objet : RE: [sc34wg3] Documenting merging rules in TMDM .. and unmerging
> too
>
>
> LMG wrote:
>
> Because some parts of the TMDM have semantics that require merging.
> You can't define properties like [subject identifiers] without requiring
> merging on their values, because that would conflict with the semantics of
> the property.
>
> The same argument applies in reverse to topic names, variant names, and
> occurrences: to always require merging would be in conflict with the
> semantics assigned to these constructs.
>
> Bernard wrote:
>
> But in knowledge management and science, a fundamental process is the
> discovery that what was considered so far a single subject is in fact more
> than one. Complexity growth is a process completely opposite to formation of
> black holes : it creates new information about new subjects...
>
> I say:
>
> It's possible for a model to have something in its semantics (i.e. convey a
> certain meaning, in this case sameness) without it being (logically)
> necessary to respond to that meaning with action (in this case, merging).
> It's clear to me that the TMDM semantics LMG describes does include a
> necessary action of merging in response to certain kinds of sameness.
> However, there is also a view that this is not necessary (where necessary ==
> an inseparable part of the concept), but is a separable consideration, that
> can (& should) be modelled independently (US position).
>
> This suggests to me that some of the apparent fruitlessness of this debate
> may arise from a buried difference about the kind of semantics we are
> dealing with for TMDM - in particular, between an operational semantics
> (LMG?) and a declarative semantics (PD/BV?).
>
> Hope this helps...
>
> Ann W.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>