[topicmapmail] occurrence abuse ? Was: [geolang-comment] First proposals for ISO 639 and 3166 available

[Piotr Kaminski]

Bernard:
> Actually, no. The TM author is the only one to judge that there is a
relationship at all
> between the topic and its occurrence, and the nature of this relationship.
Like any other
> TM assertion in fact.

Why not use occurrences for all binary relationships, then?  Just allow the
occurrence to be specified using a subject identifier (as well as subject
address and literal resource), and you're covered.  No more need for for
instance-type and supertype-subtype associations (they're occurrence types
now), and we get enforcement of "only one player for each role" constraint
for free.

The above is slightly tongue-in-cheek... but only slightly.  If we don't
want occurrences to become generic binary relationships with no explicit
member roles, then we ought to tighten up the definition of occurrence.
(Or, perhaps, get rid of occurrences altogether.)

        -- P.

--
  Piotr Kaminski <piotr@ideanest.com> http://www.ideanest.com
  It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance