[sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>

[M.Altheim]

 =20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org=20
> [mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org] On Behalf Of Geir Ove Gr=F8nmo
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:42 AM
> To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>
>=20
> On 1/16/06, Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com> wrote:
> > But with added themes on import, it is possible to track=20
> down all assertions
> > made by the imported topic map. The only things that cannot=20
> be tracked down
> > are properties that are not scoped (in particular subject identity
> > assignment).
>=20
> I don't agree. You cannot track the assertions if the topic map that
> is merged in causes topics in the mother topic map to be merged. In
> theory you can end up with one single topic[1] after the merge is
> done. The topic map may even cause the scoping topic to be merged with
> some other topic making it impossible to track.

Under no circumstances that I am aware of in XTM 1.0 are Topic
characteristics (including scope) discarded, so I don't see=20
how your argument holds any water. You will still have the=20
ability to locate all Topics containing those scoped character-
istics, and therefore locate which Topics were brought in from
the merge. I believe that at least Jim and I have done this
before. I believe that has been the whole point of our argument.
If you like to tell us that our reality is wrong, fine, but it
is our reality.

> > However, I don't see this as an argument for removing added
> > themes. If anything, it is an argument for *strengthening*=20
> the provisions
> > for dealing with partially trusted sources, not for=20
> removing them entirely.
>=20
> Indeed, but added scopes on <mergeMap> does not solve the problem as
> it stands today *at all*. What is needed is a way to *prevent* topics
> from being merged if the source cannot be trusted, alternatively be
> annotated in a way making it possible to de-merge.

No, we hardly want to prevent merging. And no, you are wrong. It
does solve the problem. We're already doing it. I'm not sure what
it might take to convince you except perhaps days and days of=20
emails on the subject, which I'm not capable of. If you won't take
our word for it there's little else to be said.=20

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                          http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic Services Development Manager
The Open University Library and Learning Resources Centre
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

     Short of taking the current president of the United States
     by the scruff of the neck and dunking his head deep into the
     rapidly melting Arctic ice cap, what more did the Earth need
     to do to make someone listen to its cry for help?
                                -- Simon Schama, The Story So Far
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1675173,00.html