[sc34wg3] Illustrating SIDPs

[Patrick Durusau]

Robert,

I will try to shorten this one by clippi g areas of obvious agreement. ;-)

Robert Barta wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:35:13AM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 
<snip>

>>
>>OK, you have my curiousity up. Can you say a little more about the 
>>significance of "(which are not themselves instances of persons)" in the 
>>context of your example?
> 
> 
> That "(..)" has only the significance to complicate the example. The principal
> complexity comes from the "number of topics". Such statements are only
> possible in the context of a particular map, so identity is not something which
> is locally governed by topic properties.
> 
Agreed.

<snip>
>>
>>Do you mean that the expression of the rules for identity (and connected 
>>merging rules) should be left out of the TMRM? (Which you already charge 
>>to be the case.)
> 
> 
> Yes, i would take it out of the core TMRM and would try to reformulate
> it with this 'low-level TMCL'.
> 
Hmmm, will have to hear more but it sounds like your 'low-level TMCL' is 
doing the same duty as a TMA. Perhaps not.

> 
>>Robert Barta said:
>>
>>>TMRM would then capture all possible forms topic maps could
>>>potentially have, without any constraint. TMRM would describe the
>>>fundamental set of all possible models (in the mathematical sense,
>>>now).
>>
> 
>>Patrick asked:
>>And that leaves the model and requirements for rule for identity (and 
>>connected merging rules) in the TMRM?
> 
> 
> Not in the core, no. But the TMCL could have a TMRM-specific part.
> 
OK, interested to see that.

> 
>>Have you looked at Neill Kipp's formalism for the TMRM?
>>http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0441.htm
> 
> 
> Yes, Graham has shown it to me in Amsterdam. A good start, but probably
> not the end solution.
> 
Sigh, never meant to imply that it was. It was a start that has not seen 
much (read any) discussion.


<snip>
> 
> 
>>Not sure how you make the jump to "all the millions of men-years 
>>developing logic sytems is simply ignored."
> 
> 
> Creating a formal representation for a particular 'data structure' in
> a declarative way is not rocket science (this is what is done in the
> Neill Kipp paper). Defining operations on these is not rocket science,
> either. Figuring out properties of can become hard, depending on the
> complexity of the rules.
> 
> In any case, logicians have spent ENOURMOUS amount of work on finding
> such properties and classifying structures accordingly. I would not
> simply walk pass that.
> 

Sorry, you missed the point. The TMRM never said you should walk by all 
that work but the place where it would be relevant is exactly where you 
are with the TMCL activity. Which I view (sight unseen no less, a good 
trick) as being similar to what the TMRM calls a TMA. The TMRM never 
defines a TMA, simply the rules that govern one.

Maybe the TMRM should not have used the word "properties" but then at 
least I did not understand it as narrowly as you use it. Had to call the 
**** of the various components something.

<snip>
> 
>>>>Stepping aside from the TMRM for a moment, recall that we discussed in 
>>>>Amsterdam the need to have a "reference model" as the common basis for 
>>>>TMCL/TMQL, etc., and have a workshop set for Montreal. What I would 
>>>>suggest is that a "reference model" that provides the framework for 
>>>>however one wishes to allocate the resolution of the identity issue is 
>>>>the goal of that exercise.
>>>
>>>
>>>I personally would love to be there, but I can't.
>>>
>>
>>Why not? (serious question, well they all are but I don't want the "why 
>>not" to sound flippant.)
> 
> 
> I am suffering from the out-of-funding syndrom.
> 

Sorry, I interpreted your reply to be in reference to the remark on the 
'"reference model" that provides a framework', and not as a reference to 
traveling to Montreal.


<snip>

>>I had the impression from your first post that you had the view (may 
>>have been a mistake on my part) that there was a formalism for TMCL that 
>>is separate from the actual rules you intend to express in TMCL. Was I 
>>simply mistaken?
> 
> 
> I am not quite sure about the question itself.
> 
> TMCL is a language which allows to define constraints C ala "a + b >
> c".  Our concrete universe is the set of possible topic maps M.  A
> TMCL constraint C then validates against a map m (element from M)
> under particular conditions as is defined by the TMCL semantics.
>

The question I would have is what defines your:

"concrete universe is the set of possible topic maps M."

Seems to me that if we take seriously the claim that a subject is 
anything, anyone would want to say...., then you have a fairly large 
universe to deal with. Or is there some subset that you intend to address?


> I would say that we should give Graham/Dmitry and /me a bit more time
> to shell out our formalism. It may be a bit easier then to show
> what parts may have a relevance for TMRM.
> 
> Or not :-)
> 

Looking forward to it.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!