[sc34wg3] Must names have a type?

[Steve Pepper]

I thought I'd found a bug, but I obviously had not.
I am more than happy with this reasoning.

Objection withdrawn, your honour.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <pepper at ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Coordinator, W3C RDF/TM Task Force
 



| -----Original Message-----
| From: sc34wg3-bounces at isotopicmaps.org
| [mailto:sc34wg3-bounces at isotopicmaps.org]On Behalf Of Lars Marius
| Garshol
| Sent: 21. mars 2006 22:14
| To: Discussion of ISO/IEC 13250 Topic Maps
| Subject: [sc34wg3] Must names have a type?
| 
| 
| 
| Steve pointed out that <instanceOf> is required everywhere it can  
| occur, except on topic names. This was actually not an omission, even  
| if I agree that it does appear to violate a general principle.
| 
| The reasoning goes roughly like this:
| 
|   - Nearly all occurrences, associations, and roles have types, but
|     most topic names do not. Do we really want to force people to
|     specify the TMDM default name type for most of their names?
| 
|   - For all topics in a topic map to have a default name is one of the
|     attractive features of Topic Maps, but few people really appreciate
|     and exploit this fully. If they are required to specify a type for
|     their topic names chances are that quite a few of them will come up
|     with their own default name type, which takes away this benefit.
| 
|   - Names didn't use to have types at all; now in the space of a few
|     months the type suddenly becomes required. This may take some
|     adjusting to...
| 
| I'd be very interested to get feedback on this, since this is an  
| issue that could do with more discussion.
| 
| --
| Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian               http://www.ontopia.net
| +47 98 21 55 50                             http://www.garshol.priv.no
| 
| 
| _______________________________________________
| sc34wg3 mailing list
| sc34wg3 at isotopicmaps.org
| http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
|