[topicmapmail] occurrence abuse ? Was: [geolang-comment] First
proposals for ISO 639 and 3166 available
Jan Algermissen
algermissen@acm.org
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:44:43 +0200
Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
> Jan
>
> You think people are lazy, and that's why they will use occurrence for a code, a phone
> number,
> an address, a short description or a long name (fuzzy boarder here, trying to fix it will
> lead to nowhere except religious wars),
> an application note ...
> whatever bit of information that they do not consider important enough to be made the
> subject of a distinct topic,
> although they know that in theory it could (should) be.
>
> I must confess I've done it many times, and will do again.
> Even though, as Murray and you, I long have considered to consider it as an abuse,
> a drift from the original thinking of topic maps "fathers". But now I'm not sure ...
>
> An abuse maybe, but a very pragmatic and efficient one. Maybe lazy people are right after
> all.
Bernard,
to begin with: I am a lazy person too...and part of my intention was that I hoped someone
would provide me with a reasonable justification for remaining lazy ;-)
I think I basically agree with what you say above.
>
> ISO 13250 says:
>
> "topic occurrence: Information that is specified as relevant to a given subject".
hhmm, true.
> and further on
>
> "This International Standard imposes no constraints on the nature of information objects
> that can be specified as occurrences of topics, nor on the addressing notations used to
> reference
> such occurrences."
Well, does it impose constraints on the *relationship* between the topic and the information objects ?
>
> And in XTM 1.0 prose
>
> "topic occurrence: A resource containing information that is specified as relevant to a
> given subject"
>
> Please explain in what aspect e-mail address, birth date or phone number do not fit that
> definition?
> ... or even name or code ... as long as the occurrence type is clearly specified, where
> is the problem?
According to these (very flexible) definitions I agree, I just *think* that the intention
was something else (that's why I am curious what the intention actually was).
Jan
>
> Bernard
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bernard Vatant
> Consultant - Mondeca
> www.mondeca.com
> Chair - OASIS TM PubSubj Technical Committee
> www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De : "Jan Algermissen" <algermissen@acm.org>
> À : <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>
> Envoyé : mardi 20 août 2002 14:28
> Objet : [topicmapmail] occurrence abuse ? Was: [geolang-comment] First proposals for ISO
> 639 and 3166 available
>
> > The message below is taken from the OASIS geolang-comment list. It addresses an
> > issue that I think of as 'abuse of occurrences'. I think this is of general interest
> > so I repost it here.
> >
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > Murray Altheim wrote:
> > >
> > > John Cowan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lars Marius Garshol scripsit:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Basically whether the strings in question are human-oriented names or
> > > >>labels for the subjects[1]. In my opinion these strings are clearly
> > > >>occurrences rather than names. The country at the south tip of Africa
> > > >>has names like 'South Africa' and 'Afrique du Sud', but not like 'ZA',
> > > >>'ZAF', or '710'.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough, but I still feel uncomfortable with saying that the string
> > > > "710" is an *occurrence* of the country denoted by "South Africa",
> > > > in the same sense that http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
> > > > is an occurrence of the (U.S.) Declaration of Independence.
> > > > I may be misled by the use of the term "occurrence" here, though.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, "710" does name (within a suitably restricted scope) that country,
> > > > in the sense of being a unique label for it. The most central sense of "name",
> > > > namely personal name, is not a basename in an XTM sense: there are other
> > > > John Cowans within any non-arbitrary scope (there is another within
> > > > Reuters, e.g., and we sometimes get each other's mail).
> > >
> > > This is precisely why in the design of the XTM 1.0 country and
> > > language topic maps I used names rather than occurrences (which
> > > I had considered). "710" *is* a name for a country within the
> > > scope of the UN code base. It's not an occurrence of that country.
> > > Now, as we all know, the language used to describe the topics and
> > > scopes heavily influences how this all fleshes out; errors are
> > > easy to make.
> > >
> > > I also have difficulty with using occurrences for another reason.
> > > Occurrences are (to my mind) the territory being mapped by a topic
> > > map, not the map. These topic maps are themselves being used as
> > > maps, such that "occurrences" would be what "users" populate the
> > > maps with. [I quote those words because I think the potential uses
> > > of these topic maps so wide as to make such characterizations a
> > > bit misleading.] I hope you get my drift though: occurrences are
> > > quite different than names in the topic map paradigm. They exist
> > > across the gulf from each other.
> > >
> > > Murray
> >
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > I think that it is an error to use occurrences for anything else than
> > for the relationship between a subject and a resource whose content is
> > dealing with the subject in some way. In particular I think it is an abuse
> > of the notion of 'occurrence' when <resourceData> elements are used to
> > assign properties to topics.
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > <topic id="t1">
> > <baseName>
> > <baseNameString>Donald Duck</baseNameString>
> > </baseName>
> > <occurrence>
> > <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#email" /></instanceOf>
> > <resourceData>dduck@hotmail.com</resourceData>
> > </occurrence>
> > <occurrence>
> > <instanceOf><topicRef xlink:href="#birthdate" /></instanceOf>
> > <resourceData>01.01.1930</resourceData>
> > </occurrence>
> > </topic>
> >
> > I think that neither the email address nor the birthdate is an
> > occurrence of the topic, I think that they are properties and that they
> > should be assigned to the topic via the use of associations (e.g. with
> > a bornBeing-birthdate association). [1]
> > Also, making the date a resource 'hides' the fact that it is a subject
> > in it's own right and it makes it much harder, for example, to lookup
> > all beings that are born on that particular date.
> >
> > Since the <resourceData> element makes it so dangerously easy to take anything
> > that comes in form of a string (dates, addresses, measurements (e.g. height
> > of a person)), wrap it inside <resourceData> and make it an occurrence of
> > a topic I am curious
> >
> >
> > * if this was actually the intention of the XTM authoring group
> >
> >
> > * what others think about this issue and in particular how others
> > solve the assignment of properties to topics
> >
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> > [1] Since we can consider the email address to be an unambigous identifier
> > of the topic, it might be a solution to make it a base name.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jan Algermissen
> > Consultant & Programmer
> >
> > Tel: ++49 (0)40 89 700 511
> > ++49 (0)177 283 1440
> > Fax: ++49 (0)40 89 700 841
> > Email: algermissen@acm.org
> > Web: http://www.topicmapping.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > topicmapmail mailing list
> > topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
--
Jan Algermissen
Consultant & Programmer
Tel: ++49 (0)40 89 700 511
++49 (0)177 283 1440
Fax: ++49 (0)40 89 700 841
Email: algermissen@acm.org
Web: http://www.topicmapping.com