parid0033
| Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:43:50
Nodes will have more than one "subject": they will
have multiple assertions made about them. For example, I can think of
cases where I am the guarantor of my my own validity (who reported Martin
Bryan as being sick last week, Martin Bryan!), which may need to be
expressed in some topic map someday. So then I'll have to distinguish the
logical me from the physical one to make the nodes unique. (Assertion =
[was-sick: Martin Bryan] [reported-by: Martin Bryan])
EMD
All you are really saying, as far as I can tell, is that in any assertion a
particular node can only play one role in the assertion. I'm not sure that
this is really valid but what seems to me to be certain is that the pair of
role and player must be unique for a given assertion.
Martin Bryan
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
***********************************************************
From shunting@etopicality.com Fri Jan 31 20:42:42 2003
Return-Path:
parid0033
| Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:52:55
> I completely agree. SLUO can never be more than a (very important) design > guideline. One can never be sure subjects are actually represented by only one > node (topic) since human knowledge is only partial... A quick comment on this issue: Subject Identity Discrimination Properties allow the RM (an RM conformant application) to determine whether two nodes 'have the same subject' by comparing the values of their SIDPs according to the rules defined in the governing TM Application Definition (for example the SAM). If the result of this comparision is that the nodes represent the same subject, the RM requires the nodes to be merged. It does not require the nodes to be merged if 'subject equality' cannot be calculated on the basis of the SIDP values and their semantics as defined in the application definition. I think that this is sufficiently expressed by the merging rules, but possibly an addition to 3.4.1 could further clarify this. ( Steve? ) |