[sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>

[Robert Barta]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:19:39AM -0000, Kal Ahmed wrote:
> Geir Ove wrote:
> > XTM as it stands today (XTM 1.0) does not give you "safe
> > aggregation". It is pretty easy to cause all kinds of damage to the
> > "mother" topic map if the "included" topic map wants to do so -- even
> > with added scope on <mergeMap>.
> > 
> > The only way that "safe aggregation" can happen is if the software
> > provides that kind of support.
> > 
> 
> But with added themes on import, it is possible to track down all assertions
> made by the imported topic map. The only things that cannot be tracked down
> are properties that are not scoped (in particular subject identity
> assignment). However, I don't see this as an argument for removing added
> themes. If anything, it is an argument for *strengthening* the provisions
> for dealing with partially trusted sources, not for removing them entirely.

Right.

I think we should have it, but then we should do it properly, and not
in an ad-hocish way, wedged into an interchange-authoring-storage-what-
ever thing.

I mean, some people may prefer to 'theme' included topics, but other
people would more like to add an occurrence say "this came from a
trustworthy source". Other people may want to tag imported topics by
changing something in the typing structure.

I have here implemented a whole language which allows packaging,
repackaging, converting, querying, updating, filtering a larger corpus
of maps [ Paper on request ]. The heaven is wide open. <mergeMap> with
scopes is a rather arbitrary way to model a rather arbitrary use case,
IMHO.

\rho