[sc34wg3] Assertion Type

[Dmitry]

On May 7, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

>
> I have been replaying the TMRM discussion in Amsterdam looking for
> places where I think that terminology differences have prevented us
> from having useful discussions. One of those places is the term
> "assertion type." I say that because when we said that one could have
> the TMDM and a different "assertion type," there were several who said
> that would not be a topic map.
>

Patrick,

Thanks a lot for your clarification of concept of assertion type in 
TMRM.

> In other words, "assertion type" does not mean to add or take anything
> away from the topic, association, occurrence model that underlies the
> TMDM. As the TMDM notes, an occurrence is a particular "type" of
> association. The TMRM allows the various "types" of assertions in a
> topic map design to be disclosed, along with a checklist for what
> happens depending upon design choices for the topic map.
>

 From my perspective TMDM statement that "occurrence is a particular 
"type" of association uses different meaning of "assertion type".

I think it makes sense to introduce additional concept: assertion 
category.

I would describe TMDM model using "categories":

TMDM has following assertion categories:
baseName
occurrence
association
address
subjectIndicator
scope

Some of  assertion categories can have "types" (baseName, occurrence, 
association).

TMDM allows to introduce new types of "typed" assertion categories.

But TMDM does not allow to define new assertion categories.

TMDM assertion categories have predefined meaning. This meaning is 
disclosed in TMDM specification.

Other models, such as RDF, can define different assertion categories 
and define set of constraints based on these assertion categories.

Mapping between models is a mapping between assertion categories and 
constraints.


Dmitry