[topicmapmail] Is the title the basename ?

[Sam Hunting]

> Sam Hunting wrote:
> > 
> > > It is always a question whether to mung a name to get uniqueness rather than
> > > to apply a unique but perhaps not very enlightening scope.  If the name is
> > > not unique, then you may not be able to distinguish it (perhaps so you can
> > > select it) in a list of other names.  If you mung the name, it will probably
> > > seem a bit strange.
> > 
> > Particularly if you are dealing with a community that has a strong
> > commitment to controlling a (pre-existing) vocabulary.
> 
> So:
> 
> 1. if we are dealing with only one controlled vocabulary, it's their fault
>    if it is actually not controlled,
> 
> 2. if we are dealing with one controlled and one uncontrolled vocabulary,
>    then mung the name from the uncontrolled one (they won't get angry)
> 
> 3. if we are dealing with two controlled vocabularies, we are in big trouble
>    I guess, because they both get angry ;-)
> 
> Cheers,

Well, the answer to #3 is right below from Tom P.

> > > One way to enhance the name is to add something about
> > > its context - this may seem more natural to a reader.

Of course, Tom was "adding context" in the from of adding meaningful data
to the string (not really munging) instead of using <scope> -- it's the
age old question isn't it? Where to load the meanging -- the data or the
markup. I wonder what the implication would be of "meaningfully
munging" the basenamestring data -- with another controlled vocabulary
designed for that purpose?

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.goose-works.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------