[sc34wg3] Semantics of subject, topic type, etc

[Steve Pepper]

Murray,

You might like to get up to speed on the latest work in SC34 before claiming
that Lars Marius' definitions lack a formally underpinning. You could
usefully start with the following:

Topic Maps Data Model (undergoing final ballot):
  http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0696.pdf 

Topic Maps Reference Model (moving toward FCD):
  http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0710.pdf

Topic Maps Query Language (moving toward FCD):
  http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0731.pdf

Topic Maps Constraint Language (moving toward FCD but still a bit patchy):
  http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0668.pdf

The blog in question used, as Lars Marius noted, an ad-hoc solution. The
implication, perhaps too subtle for those not involved in the on-going work,
being that the real formal definitions would use TMQL, which in turn will be
based on the TMRM.

As you will see, the world has moved on since 2001. So, please, let's spend
our energy constructively. This forum is for people who wish to participate
in the work of WG3, not quarrel about the interpretation of the past.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Ontopian
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3


-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg3-bounces at isotopicmaps.org
[mailto:sc34wg3-bounces at isotopicmaps.org] On Behalf Of Murray Altheim
Sent: 02 June 2006 07:47
To: sc34wg3 at isotopicmaps.org
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Semantics of subject, topic type, etc

...

>> As for formal semantics, I don't see that your blog entry is any
>> more formal than the prose text of the XTM 1.0 prose text. [...]
>
> I don't think I want to enter into a discussion about whether we can
> call this formal semantics or not.

I'm not interested in entering into a discussion either, which would
be pointless. I'm just suggesting that you not call something formal
if you're not defining it formally. As a term of art it is well known
(though more commonly called a "model-theoretic semantics") and has
been used for much longer than either of us has been alive. The ISO
specification either includes a formal, mathematical definition or it
does not; this isn't really a topic of discussion. From what I've
seen this can demonstrably be shown to not be the case. There is
therefore no further discussion necessary.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray06 at altheim.com>                              ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

       In the evening
       The rice leaves in the garden
       Rustle in the autumn wind
       That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3 at isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3