[topicmapmail] Superclass-subclass indentation in the Omnigat or

Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:19:27 -0500

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B98D.36698ED0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Robert,

I completely agree with you about people abusing predefined
relations/objects. However, I still believe that having hard-coded (or
somehow provided) the 3 general relations "is-a", "superclass-subrclass" and
"part-of" (no more :-) would significantly improve the usability of topic
maps in education. For example, if students (or any kind of novices in a
domain) do topic maps to describe the structure of a 'topic' (a very typical
task) and they do not have hard-coded (or somehow provided) the above 3
relations, I would imagine that most of them would have hard time to decide
what relations they should define (and at what level of specificacy) and
even how to name them - so making a TM could turn out to be extremely
difficult and overloading task - so it would not be (educationally)
efficient. This of course by no means would prevent anybody of
'specialising' any of the above 3 general relations if they wish to do so by
defining domain-specific relations, such as the ones you listed.

Darina

> > yes - you are right about not hard-coding specific 
> relations in the XTM
> > standard, however,  "part-of" is general and necessary for 
> representing even
> > very very simple ontologies, in fact the relationships 
> listed above are all
> > kind of "part-of" relations, so if I don't want to be very 
> specific in my
> > ontology I can use "part-of" for expressing them, but I 
> cannot use "is-a"
> > for that.
> 
> Darina,
> 
> That's exactly the way I see it, you need some "part-of" association
> type whereever you look. I would bet, though, that if "part-of" would
> have been part of XTM, then people would have abused it heavily (I
> mark student maps, I know how abusive people can become :-).
> 
> I guess it reminds us that we should not trust too much predefined
> vocabularies unless they are there for a reason other than mere
> uniformness.
> 
> \rho
> > 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B98D.36698ED0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [topicmapmail] Superclass-subclass indentation in the =
Omnigator</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Robert,</FONT>
</P>

I completely agree with you about people abusing =
predefined relations/objects. However, I still believe that having =
hard-coded (or somehow provided) the 3 general relations =
&quot;is-a&quot;, &quot;superclass-subrclass&quot; and =
&quot;part-of&quot; (no more :-) would significantly improve the =
usability of topic maps in education. For example, if students (or any =
kind of novices in a domain) do topic maps to describe the structure of =
a 'topic' (a very typical task) and they do not have hard-coded (or =
somehow provided) the above 3 relations, I would imagine that most of =
them would have hard time to decide what relations they should define =
(and at what level of specificacy) and even how to name them - so =
making a TM could turn out to be extremely difficult and overloading =
task - so it would not be (educationally) efficient. This of course by =
no means would prevent anybody of 'specialising' any of the above 3 =
general relations if they wish to do so by defining domain-specific =
relations, such as the ones you listed.

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Darina</FONT>
</P>

&gt; &gt; yes - you are right about not hard-coding =
specific 
 &gt; relations in the XTM
 &gt; &gt; standard, however,&nbsp; =
&quot;part-of&quot; is general and necessary for 
 &gt; representing even
 &gt; &gt; very very simple ontologies, in fact the =
relationships 
 &gt; listed above are all
 &gt; &gt; kind of &quot;part-of&quot; relations, so =
if I don't want to be very 
 &gt; specific in my
 &gt; &gt; ontology I can use &quot;part-of&quot; for =
expressing them, but I 
 &gt; cannot use &quot;is-a&quot;
 &gt; &gt; for that.
 &gt; 
 &gt; Darina,
 &gt; 
 &gt; That's exactly the way I see it, you need some =
&quot;part-of&quot; association
 &gt; type whereever you look. I would bet, though, =
that if &quot;part-of&quot; would
 &gt; have been part of XTM, then people would have =
abused it heavily (I
 &gt; mark student maps, I know how abusive people =
can become :-).
 &gt; 
 &gt; I guess it reminds us that we should not trust =
too much predefined
 &gt; vocabularies unless they are there for a reason =
other than mere
 &gt; uniformness.
 &gt; 
 &gt; \rho
 &gt; &gt;

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B98D.36698ED0--