[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations

[Dmitry]

On Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 10:52AM, "Steve Pepper" <pepper.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>I want to make sure I understand this proposal correctly:
>
>* Lars Heuer
>|
>| > The idea to create binary assocs with predefined role types
>| > (subject, object) is sexy, but I wonder if this is the right
>| > thing for CTM.
>
>Question: Would every association of every type that uses this
>proposed syntax end up with the two predefined role types
>'subject' and 'object'? In other words:
>
>   born-in( subject puccini, object lucca )
>   composed-by( subject tosca, object puccini )
>   located-in( subject lucca, object tuscany )
>   etc.
>

My suggestion is to have a default mapping which does not require any additional annotations or templates
into standard roles "tm:subject" and "tm:object", and to have a mechanism for overwriting defaults if someone wants to do this.

Yes, this approach promotes specific style of binary associations, but users will never see these standard roles anyway.
Standard roles allow mapping back from TMDM to CTM in "compact form" without visible roles. GUI will use association names, which
can be scoped by a role (like in Omnigator).

Dmitry