[sc34wg3] Illustrating SIDPs

[Ann Wrightson]

Robert/Patrick said:

> 
> 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 say:

I think Robert meant to talk about the things that are topic maps
(considered as maps) - a universe that includes at least TMDM-compliant
topic maps - and to exclude from M those things that (although they may be
named in or referenced from topic maps) are not topic maps. He was also
initiating the very respectable mathematical/logical move of indicating the
universe relatively informally, then using the development of a formal
definition of its members as a way to get more precise (while trying to stay
faithful to the original intuition).

I read Patrick as including the range of values for subjects in the universe
as well, so we have different universes.

To Patrick: it might be helpful if you provided an example of an information
artefact that is not a topic map.

Ann W.