[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations

[Dmitry]

On 1-Feb-08, at 12:10 PM, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * Lars Heuer
>>
>> Yes, but the problem remains that we'll mislead users to create all
>> over the binary associations where one topic plays the 'subject' and
>> one topic plays the 'object' role. Lazy users wouldn't use good role
>> types, but the subject/object-ones. Further, the subject/object role
>> types may give the impression, that associations are directed, but
>> this is not the case in Topic Maps.
>
> This also matches what I am thinking exactly.
>
> --Lars M.
>

More I think about it, more I see value to have these standard roles.
 From my perspective, it is  more important to think about the nature  
of association type and to put association type in the "right" name  
space/domain and
to have  well defined interpretation of type-subtype for associations.

blogging:has_post
     ako  dc:has_part

I always  can define user friendly names for roles for  specific  
association types:

tm: subject
     - "Blog" @ blogging:has_post

tm: object
     - "Post"  @ blogging:has_post


tm: subject
     - "Resource" @ dc:has_part

tm: object
     - "Value"  @ dc:has_part

Some benefits:

- simple predicate interpretation and ability to define  deduction  
rules with staying in the realm of associations (not like in tolog!)

o:has_parent
     - "parents"
     - "parent of" @tm:object

o:has_mother
     - "mother"
     - "mother of" @tm:object

o:has_father
     - "father"
     - "father of" @tm:object


o:has_parent(X,Y):-
       o:has_mother(X,Y)  |  o:has_father(X,Y).

- simplified TMCL

- simplified TMQL

- simple integration with CYC and other knowledge bases and inference  
engines

- interoperability with RDF (almost without any annotations)

-------------------------------------------

Should I call this thing TM-Lite :)


Dmitry